Flags of Our Fathers’ Author Now Doubts His Father Was in Iwo Jima Photo, NY Times Reports

[Charlie Flick]

The NY Times is now reporting that James Bradley, author and son of John Bradley, now suspects that his father was not one of the flag raisers in the famous Joe Rosenthal image. The article states:

 

The identity of an American serviceman in one of the most iconic photographs of World War II, the raising of the American flag over Iwo Jima, has been called into question by his son, who wrote a best-selling book that memorialized his father’s role.

James Bradley, the author of “Flags of Our Fathers,” said in an interview Tuesday that he no longer believed that his father, John Bradley, a Navy corpsman, was one of the six American service members who have been long identified in the photograph.

Mr. Bradley described his doubts about his father’s role after the Marine Corps revealed last week that it had opened an inquiry into whether some of the six men long thought to be in the image had been misidentified. He said that his father, had participated in raising a flag on Iwo Jima on Feb. 23, 1945, but had not participated in a second flag-raising the same day, which became the famous photograph.

His father, he said, probably thought that the first flag-raising was the one that was captured in the photograph.

All of the men identified in the photograph are dead. Three of the men died fighting the Japanese on Iwo Jima. John Bradley died in 1994.

Mr. Bradley’s doubts tell a story about the fog of war, the efforts of a son to memorialize his father and the apparent willingness of the Marines to at first brush aside questions about one of their most historic moments.

The photograph was taken by Joe Rosenthal, a photographer for The Associated Press, during one of the bloodiest battles of the war. It was splashed across the front pages of newspapers throughout the country less than 48 hours after it was taken, and was an immediate source of patriotism and controversy. President Harry S. Truman used it to sell bonds to fund the war, Mr. Rosenthal brushed back accusations that it had been staged, and questions arose — and were apparently answered — about who was really in it.

The photograph was also the inspiration for the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Va., a statue in which six 32-foot-tall figures are depicted in the positions captured by Mr. Rosenthal.

Mr. Bradley said he had become convinced that his father was not in the photograph after studying evidence that was published in a 2014 article in The Omaha World-Herald. He said he had waited a year to examine the evidence in the newspaper article because he was working on a new book in Vietnam, and then became ill. He did not come forward with his belief that his father was not in the photograph, he said, because there was little interest from the news media and the Marines.

“It wasn’t top of mind,” Mr. Bradley said in a telephone interview. “It wasn’t a priority. I was overseas, and this past fall I was recovering from a disease I got in New Guinea that almost killed me. Now there’s interest in this, and I’m talking about it. I didn’t have the energy to carry the water all by myself.”

“Flags of Our Fathers,” first published in 2000, was on best-seller lists for nearly a year. It was later made into a movie directed by Clint Eastwood.

“Here is the true story behind the six flag raisers and the immortal photograph that came to symbolize the power and courage of America during World War II,” reads a summary on the back of a paperback edition of the book. “In ‘Flags of Our Fathers,’ the son of one of the flag raisers captures the glory, the heartbreak, and the legacy of the six ordinary boys who came together at a crucial moment in one of history’s bloodiest battles — and lifted the heart and spirit of a nation at war.”

The Marine Corps acknowledged in a written statement that “a private organization” had approached it with new information about the photograph and that it was investigating the matter, but it would not comment on what that information was.

Marine officials said the inquiry was being led by the corps’ chief historian, and the commandant of the Marines is expected to be briefed on the results of the investigation in the coming weeks. It is not clear when the Marines will release the findings to the public.

“Rosenthal’s photo captured a single moment in the 36-day battle during which more than 6,500 U.S. servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, and it is representative of the more than 70,000 U.S. Marines, sailors, soldiers and Coast Guardsmen that took part in the battle,” said Maj. Clark Carpenter, a spokesman for the Marines. “We are humbled by the service and sacrifice of all who fought on Iwo Jima.”

 

Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/iwo-jima-marines-bradley.html?emc=edit_na_20160503&nlid=58802336&ref=cta

 

So, if John Bradley was not in the Rosenthal photo who was it??

 

Regards,

Charlie

 

[Charlie Flick]

I had missed this before. Here is the link to the 11/23/14 article published in the Omaha World Journal mentioned in the NY Times article above:

 

http://dataomaha.com/media/news/2014/iwo-jima/

 

James Bradley is quoted in the 2014 article as saying "So, you are telling me that there are all these witnesses, these survivors who come home (from Mount Suribachi), and nobody says anything, and then someone figures out it's different 70 years later, when they are all gone? I mean, come on."

 

An earlier thread on this topic which I had not seen before today: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/225336-new-questions-about-iwo-jima-flag-raising-photo-has-anyone-seen-this/?hl=%2Biwo+%2Brosenthal#entry1785355

 

Regards,

Charlie

[Brig]

been discussed here a few years ago, with analysis... http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/225336-new-questions-about-iwo-jima-flag-raising-photo-has-anyone-seen-this/

[Bellumbill]

I agree been discussed and analyzed before however the difference now is that James Bradley Jr. now seems to have changed his opinion on his father's presence in the photo. This is a pretty significant. Looking forward to more discussion.

 

Very best,

 

Bill K.

[hbtcoveralls]

The earlier argument based on the original Omaha World Journal and the postings on the USMF are quite compelling. I think it was less important to the men who were there than to the rest of the world, but let's do our best to get it right,

Tom Bowers

[willysmb44]

Okay, so how about Gagnon and Hayes? Wouldn't they have known that "Doc" Bradley wasn't there with them at the time Rosenthal took that shot? What about SGT Bill Genaust's color movie film?

[hbtcoveralls]

Okay, so how about Gagnon and Hayes? Wouldn't they have known that "Doc" Bradley wasn't there with them at the time Rosenthal took that shot? What about SGT Bill Genaust's color movie film?

Read the original article and the posts on USMF by it's author, He looks at all of the photos and film. The analysis of the uniforms and equipment of the men in the photos seem to prove that Bradley wasn't in the second more Iconic photo. Like so many things I don't think the guys in the photo thought much about who was helping them put the flag up, just went on with the war.

Tom Bowers

[strawberry 9]

I remember reading an article that pointed out the uniform differences with photo evidence. It did seem pretty clear that there were discrepancies. It seems that this is a story that just keeps going. The fact that John Bradley is now confirming it is huge. He absolutely denied the possibility up until now.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/04/author-says-doesnt-think-father-was-iwo-jima-flag-raiser-after-all.html

[hbtcoveralls]

I should point out that I feel any man who served on Iwo Jima, and especially a Corpsman, has nothing to prove to anyone. It was the Navy and the Marine Corps who pushed so hard to identify the people in the photo and I really don't think the men in the shot cared one way or another. It is good however that they are going to see and set the record straight, if it needs it, now that the new photographic evidence is available.

[doyler]

I should point out that I feel any man who served on Iwo Jima, and especially a Corpsman, has nothing to prove to anyone. It was the Navy and the Marine Corps who pushed so hard to identify the people in the photo and I really don't think the men in the shot cared one way or another. It is good however that they are going to see and set the record straight, if it needs it, now that the new photographic evidence is available.

 

 

I agree 100%

 

its good they are looking into setting the record straight but I also tend to think these men(both sets of flag raisers) really made no consious thought about two flag raisings.

Whether it be the first or what we have become accustomed to calling the second flag raising and the famous photo.THe flag was raised the first time and Bradley was reported there.The second raising was a replacement of the first flag and then later catapulted the men into the spot light.The first flag raisers were most of all but forgotten.Many as stated fought for years to be recognized.I cant accept that Bradley would have went along with a cover story all these years if he hadnt actually been there at some point.

 

Im just thinking in the confusion between the first and second flag raisings there was misidentifications as to which group set which flag.Being on the first raising may have gotten his name included on the second and to none of his own fault when asked if he was there when the flag went up or helped he automatically fell into the photo.I have spoken to a few veterans and they themselves never realized there was more than one flag raising and assume the famous photo was the only one.

[willysmb44]

Just seems odd that as Bradley tried to keep such a low profile as one of the men in the photo, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say, "Uh, I'm not in the shot, so quit bugging me!"

[38Driver]

What's sad about this is what Doc Bradley saw as an inconsequential act has been so glorified and what he and others accomplished and endured gets forgotten. In our thirst to create heroes we so often get it wrong.

 

Whether he was in the photo or not, his courage and sacrifice on that godforsaken island is what matters, not some image. He didn't care about the photo and understood what it was. He also knew the cost so many paid. This is just trivia. It just doesn't matter, in fact if they'd thought it through they'd have left them all anonymous so as to represent every last man on that island.

[doyler]

What's sad about this is what Doc Bradley saw as an inconsequential act has been so glorified and what he and others accomplished and endured gets forgotten. In our thirst to create heroes we so often get it wrong.

 

Whether he was in the photo or not, his courage and sacrifice on that godforsaken island is what matters, not some image. He didn't care about the photo and understood what it was. He also knew the cost so many paid. This is just trivia. It just doesn't matter, in fact if they'd thought it through they'd have left them all anonymous so as to represent every last man on that island.

 

 

Well said and my thoughts exactly.Was thiking th same today that i they would have just not named anyone....everyone would have been the flag bearer.

[mikie]

Very well said, 38. I couldn't agree more.

[ScottG]

Ira Hayes didn't like the attention on the War Bond drive, he spoke out about it and was reprimanded verbally on several occasions. As many have pointed out, greater acts of courage were happening daily on Iwo and in other locations. Still, the administration needed to sell bonds, and these Marines were picked to do it. Then comes Bradley, not a Marine, working basically separate from his navy chain of command. He saw what Hayes said and what he was told. So, he keeps quiet, does the bond drive and eventually goes home. Maybe at some point he spoke up and said he wasn't there, but it isn't unrealistic that the response he got was similar to that of Hayes, "shut up and sell bonds". Bradley goes home, he knows he wasn't there and he refuses to take calls or talk about the incident after a period of time. He never bucks the system and comes forward as he remembers what happened to Hayes and perhaps even to himself. Its not that unreasonable. He is gone and we will never know what he said or would have said, but perhaps he was just following the last order he was given? Scott.

[doyler]

 

Just seems odd that as Bradley tried to keep such a low profile as one of the men in the photo, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say, "Uh, I'm not in the shot, so quit bugging me!"

 

I dunno.So many questions but knowing the vets I know or knew most all were very low profile.Even realatives of mine I knew.They really didnt want to talk about the war.They all just were damn glad to get home and wanted to move on.Its not like the movies and reality was many of the men really didnt want to be on some " worthless sh-it hole island"(as Cousin Dick descibed them).He really didnt even want to be in the service and wasnt a big fan of President Roosevelt. Im sure they had some horrific memories and didnt want to relive them more than they were.

 

Here in my area there is/was a Navy Cross reciepiant(USN PILOT) and an ARMY DFC reciepiant.Sadly I never heard or knew of the pilot til 10 years ago.The Army vet I heard of back in the 90s but growing up here all my life and even having family in his home area I never heard of him until reading about him in the paper.

 

The DFC reciepiant was with the 133rd Inf/34th Division.He lived in obscurity.I never knew of him until they ran an article in the area paper for some reason.He was never married.No children and had lived with and taken care of his mother since the end of the war.He basically was an introvert.Even the interview in the paper commented on how he was "a man of few words" THere is an Army Reserve Center now named after him and I have been wanting to see if they have any information on him or what possibly happned to his medal(s) HE was reffered to as "THE GHOST" by members of his unit who served with him.Many were all local area men from the Gaurd who were in Co E 133rd Infantry.He was a legend for things he done and one man here who served with him said he should have been awarded the Medal of Honor for his exploits in WW2.Much of what he done wasnt witnessed as he would disappear behinde the lines.One vet here told of how this man went into a town full of germans dressed as a german and sat in a cafe or two and listened to conversations.He spoke and understood german fluently.Other stories tell of him taking prisioners at night.THere are several passages about him in the book Dog Faces Who Smiled through Tears.He was a very quiet man who loved to hunt and fish and spend time in the woods.Much of this was also what made him the soldier he was.He was very adept at being alone and at home stalking game in the woods.

 

If intrested in his citation I did find it on line

 

http://valor.militarytimes.com/search.php?term=Edwin+Lemke

[doyler]

Read this as well.Im glad this is also pointing out how the first flag raising and those there were basically obscured and over looked

 

 

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/05/08/photos-show-bradley-raised-first-flag-iwo-jima/83979172/

[Government Issue]

Just seems odd that as Bradley tried to keep such a low profile as one of the men in the photo, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say, "Uh, I'm not in the shot, so quit bugging me!"

 

I've thought about this as well. However, I wonder if the war department is to blame with him being misidentified. I can easily see them having anyone involved in the flag raisings pulled off the line and although Bradley wasn't in the 2nd photo, I can see them saying that they don't want 4 of the 6 men to be known as KIA to the public. It'd be bad for a public who's support was already questionable for continuing the war in the pacifc. Plus Bradley was a member of the navy, so that's a boost having two branches represented in the photo rather than just the marines. The war department probably figured it sure boost moral and war bonds sales. Maybe this is what happened and they were told not to divulge the legit story or maybe this isn't what happened.

 

I as others have expressed view that anyone who set foot on sulfur island in '45 is worthy of the deepest and sincerest respect. Do I view any of the men differently now that their finally officially confirming what was at first denied? Nope. They're all heroes. I too am glad that people are finally talking about the first flag going up as well. All those marines including Doc Bradley almost got wiped out going up surabachi and then having to deal with the surprise counterattack from the caves...

[hbtcoveralls]

The Marine corps yesterday corrected themselves and identified the correct flag raiser in the iconic photo as PFC Harold Schultz and not John Bradley. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/23/flag-raiser-marine-iwo-jima-photo/86254440/

Tom Bowers

[willysmb44]

Funny, but you'd almost think it'd be worth re-cutting Eastwood's movie to reflect this, that in the end, it wasn't Bradley in the photo at all.

Yeah, I know that'd never happen, but it'd provide an even more ironic twist to a very odd story...

I've thought about this as well. However, I wonder if the war department is to blame with him being misidentified. I can easily see them having anyone involved in the flag raisings pulled off the line and although Bradley wasn't in the 2nd photo, I can see them saying that they don't want 4 of the 6 men to be known as KIA to the public. It'd be bad for a public who's support was already questionable for continuing the war in the pacifc. Plus Bradley was a member of the navy, so that's a boost having two branches represented in the photo rather than just the marines. The war department probably figured it sure boost moral and war bonds sales. Maybe this is what happened and they were told not to divulge the legit story or maybe this isn't what happened.

I abjectly reject the idea that Bradley held onto a secret for the rest of his life like that, especially if he knew he wasn't in the photo.