An echo report about the Battle of Manilla Philippines is decades overdue

My husband was in the Navy and stationed in the Philippines, where we lived as a family for three years on the Subic Naval Base. We visited the cemetery in Manila where this report is the focus of the reason why many Filipinos are carry so many World War II mental wounds carried by their collective nightmarish memories.

A shop in Ologapo, Luzon Island, located ourside of the Subic Naval Base (L'Heureux photograph circa 1975-76)

Opinion echo: They survived the 1945, Battle of Manila or had family who did. Read their letters:

Every now and then, I am struck by the stories of hardship and struggle that many readers carry with them in their daily lives. These are often tales told in letters based on firsthand experience — for example, of botched abortions before 1972, or from the survivors of gun violence. Occasionally we’ll hear from Holocaust survivors, moved to tell of the atrocities they witnessed as their numbers grow smaller with time.

This week, we heard from another group of readers affected by the horrors of World War II eight decades ago. They wrote to The  LA Times after reading a Memorial Day article by Bob Drogin about the 1945, liberation of Manila, a largely forgotten battle for the capital of the Philippines in which 1 in 10 of the city’s civilian residents died.

But these readers — either the descendants of survivors or survivors themselves — hadn’t forgotten anything, and most expressed appreciation for The Times’ coverage. Reading their letters is a reminder of the history and trauma carried by so many of us, often in silence.

To the editor: I am one of the remaining few who experienced the Battle of Manila in 1945. Seeing its acknowledgment in The Times was unnerving.

Manila had lost telephones, gas and electricity. Parts of the water system failed. There were no police or firefighters. Hospitals could not treat patients. The city was starving.

Japanese forces included those from ships sunk by U.S. bombs, many of them Korean. They knew they were going to die. Their commanders had virtually no means of communicating with them as the Americans shelled the battleground without regard for civilian safety.

People didn’t know how to protect themselves. Many gathered at a college campus, where men were separated from women and children, and were then lined up to be machine-gunned but suddenly ordered to return home. My aunt was told to flee by a Japanese lieutenant. Her area became the scene of many atrocities.

Remembering this still brings about post-traumatic stress. It’s inescapable.

From Allen J. Manzano, in Carlsbad, California

To the editor: Your article brought back memories of tales heard from relatives who had firsthand experience and witnessed the atrocities and cruelty of war.

My grandfather was an officer of the Philippine army who was forced to leave his home and family to evade the Japanese soldiers hunting to execute him.

My father was a member of the United States Army in the Far East and was in the Bataan Death March. He survived by rolling into a ditch full of dead soldiers and pretending to be dead too. Many others described the atrocities they witnessed.

The people of the Philippines were caught in a horrific crossfire between U.S. and Japanese forces. The tales described by Drogin were familiar as well as painful. The past failure to recognize and document the stories for posterity is disappointing.

From Thelma Ordonez, in Los Angeles County, Arcadia

To the editor: Bravo for Drogin’s very interesting story about the Battle for Manila.

My uncle was a 19-year old Marine stationed in the Philippines in 1942 when the fortress on Corregidor island was captured by the Japanese. He spent much of World War II as a prisoner of war.

Fortunately, he was not subjected to the Bataan Death March, but he and other Corregidor prisoners were routinely tortured and beaten. He rarely talked about it.

Late in life, he revealed that he had escaped the POW camp and spent a year in the mountains fighting with guerrillas. I had never heard a story like that and long wondered if it was really true. Then I read Stephen Ambrose’s book, “The Pacific,” which told the tale of several American POWs who escaped, fought as guerrillas and were later evacuated to Australia.

My uncle returned home after the islands were liberated. He was treated at the Navy hospital in Norco, attended UCLA on the GI Bill and made a career in aerospace working on missiles and satellites. And, like so many veterans, he took most of his war stories with him when he died in 1990.

From Willard Gleeson, in Glendale, California

Battle of Corregidor May 5, 1942 – May 6, 1942

To the editor: For eight days and nights in February 1945, my father guarded the gates of Santo Tomas University in Manila with his platoon. They had no sleep, no cooked food and only rations to eat. Artillery fire rained continuously as they secured the university.

Against orders, he compassionately let wounded civilians through the gates for medical attention. He was only 23 and was awarded the Bronze Star for this heroic service. I cried reading Drogin’s informative article and then re-reading my father’s memoir about the events.

US Ambassador Kristie Kenney, ambassador to the Philippines 2006-2009, at the Manila American Cemetery and Memorial.

What a shame if many in Manila blame U.S. forces for the “unnecessary destruction of their city,” as Drogin writes. (Maine Writer response:  This opinion was certainly not my experience while my family lived in the Philippines. In fact, my family visited Manila over a half dozen times and toured Corregidor.  Filipinos overwhelmingly disliked the Japanese, full stop! I never heard negativity about the American liberation of Manila. In fact, the Manila Hotel, where General Douglas MacArthur held his official command position, is still somewhat of a political shrine.  Filipinos who I knew loved General MacArthur.)

The innate savagery of war should not be blamed on the liberators who risked their lives to save the starving captive people.

From Ellen McCracken, in Santa Barbara, California

Marco Rubio is the classic "anchor baby"

Republican hypocrisy is like a smoke and mirrors reality show. 

Donald Trump (Scottish) Marco Rubio (Cuban) Rafael "Ted" Cruz (Canadain) are playing a cruel smoke and mirrors show with their conservative base when they oppose immigration reforms.

Top Republican candidates - Donald Trump, Marco Rubio (23 %) and Ted Cruz (21 %) pander to their conservative political base by preaching against immigration reforms. They are opposed to providing a path to citizenship for people living in the US under certain circumstances. In so doing, the entire right wing has created a national anti-immigrant stereotype. Yet, the fact is, all three of these candidates are children of immigrant parents. In fact, Senator Marco Rubio fits the description of an "anchor baby" because his parents were not US citizens when he was born, on Mary 28, 1971, in Miami, FL. Nevertheless, the Republicans lead their political base into a hypocritical myth about how immigrants are the cause of "unemployment", "crime", "welfare" and "disease". These evil labels are totally unsubstantiated. Yet, all three candidates are the antithesis of the stereotypes they are reported to be opposing, when they fight against immigration reforms.  

Donald Trump is the son of real estate developer Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, an immigrant from Scotland. His grandfather, Frederich Trump, immigrated to North America from Germany.

Senator Marco Rubio is a Cuban American from Miami. He is the second son and third child of Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales (née Garcia) Rubio. His parents were Cubans who immigrated to the United States in 1956, prior to the rise of Fidel Castro in January 1959. His mother made at least four trips back after Castro’s victory, including for a month in 1961. Neither of his parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of Rubio’s birth, but his parents applied for U.S. citizenship and were naturalized in 1975. As an "anchor baby", Rubio fits the description, referring to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency. Therefore, it makes no sense for Senator Rubio to oppose any immigration reforms, because doing is hypocritical, in my opinion.

Senator Rafael "Ted" Cruz is not a natural born American citizen. He was born in Calgary Canada. Honestly, I have no problem, whatsoever, with the citizenship status of Senator Cruz today. Indeed, he claims he's an American citizen and I believe him. Yet, the fact is, the US Constitution requires "natural born" citizenship to qualify to run for president, and he does not meet this requirement, in my opinion. (When my family lived on the Subic Naval Base in the Philippines, the babies born at the base hospital in Cubi were issued US passports. No one issued Mrs. Cruz a US passport on November 22, 1970, for her baby boy "Rafael", when he was born in Foothills Hospital- probably, by the way, paid for by the Canadian health care system).  Therefore, it makes no sense for Senator Cruz, who courts the religious conservative vote, to preach against immigration reform, it's hypocritical, in my opinion.

For unknown reasons, the American news media overlooks the immigration history for the three top Republican presidential candidates in 2016, even while reporting on their "anti-immigration reforms".  Trump will build an anti-immigration wall. Cruz seems to support sending all undocumented immigrants back to their countries of origin, regardless of the expense and hardships involved.  Rubio is as clear as mud about where his immigration reform message falls in the "anti-immigration" spectrum.

Nevertheless, the three anti-immigration amigos all lived the American dream. As a result, they're united in the successful lives they have enjoyed.  Their individual and collective successes have completely busted the anti-immigration stereotypes the Republican conservative base supports. Trump-Rubio-Cruz are playing a cruel immigration "smoke and mirrors game" with their supporters because they oppose immigration reforms, while each has benefited from the current pro-immigration policies.