no prisoners (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

geofflambert -> no prisoners (5/6/2014 3:59:23 AM)

There was someone I knew ten years ago and for maybe 12 years before that who was an infantryman in Europe. His last name was (still is I hope) Walker and that's what everyone called him. I was his manager for 3 years or so but I cannot for the life of me remember what his first name is (was) but I'm forgetting so many things as time passes. I can tell you that he was the most stalwart person I ever met and he was proud that he had never (we're talking decades from around '48) taken a day off sick. My understanding was, and I heard at least some of this from his mouth to my ear, he was in Patton's army (I have no clue what division) when the Ardennes offensive occured. Now, like some veterans I knew, and others I knew of secondhand or at least their words about this he did not like talking about the war. I knew vets who were reticent even though they'd never been in combat. Somehow the subject came up (I'm not sure what that subject was with precision) and he offered "We never took any prisoners".

He was very religious (which doesn't carry much weight with me) but he seemed to me to carry a very developed view of morality that never conflicted with mine and carried it out to the best of his ability. I don't bring this up because I'm hunting for war criminals or anything like that, but we need to understand what things were like and not talking about them is not the best course to take.

This may have occurred after the "Band of Brothers" episode relevant to this subject. I don't know for certain but my feeling is he was a private first class. He could've been a sergeant in my army.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 4:09:06 AM)

Geoff,

if he was part of Patton's 3rd Army, then I'd guess 4th, 6th or 9th Armoured Division during the counter-offensive right after x-mas 1944.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Ardennes/USA-E-Ardennes-24.html

And the 'no-prisoner policy', if one can call it that way, probably after the Americans got word of the Malmady massacre.

http://www.historynet.com/massacre-at-malmedy-during-the-battle-of-the-bulge.htm

Regards,

Klink, Oberst



geofflambert -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 4:16:01 AM)

I don't know about any policy and he didn't say anything about any policy or any relevent orders. He just stated it as a matter of fact. The grunts usually didn't know about policy (I'm thinking) it was just the reality that they were in.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 4:42:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't know about any policy and he didn't say anything about any policy or any relevent orders. He just stated it as a matter of fact. The grunts usually didn't know about policy (I'm thinking) it was just the reality that they were in.

Hence me putting it in between quotation marks, Geoff ;) Of course, those actions weren't sanctioned by senior commanders, neither is there any written order or approval.

Here, dug this one up just now -

http://life.time.com/history/battle-of-the-bulge-rare-photos-from-hitlers-last-gamble-1944-1945/#1

And this:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Malmedy_hearings-1.pdf
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Malmedy_hearings-2.pdf

Klink, Oberst



bartrat -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 5:06:04 AM)

My great aunt was nurse and a officer who was assigned to a Army Air Corps medical evacuation unit in WW2. She served in North Africa, Italy, and France/Belgium.
I got her to talk about her experiences during the Battle of the Bulge some ten years ago. After Christmas 1944 they started flying out German POWs from Belgium to the UK for advanced care. She showed me a Iron Cross that was given to her by a German during a flight (her stories of flying to Belgium in a C-47 sitting on top of many 5 gal jerry cans loaded with gasoline was scary to me, to her it was no big deal). The wounded German POW insisted on giving her the medal. I asked her the logical question, was the POW wearing a different uniform that most of the POW's? The answer was yes. So my guess he was SS and did not want any questions about the medal when he got to England.
The reason I bring this up, is even the Germans knew at the time that the war crimes they were committing would come back to haunt them, and this is why for some American GI's the Germans deserved no kind treatment.



bartrat -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 5:10:09 AM)

Another group that took no prisoners were the Canadian units when they fought the SS. After the massacre in Normandy by the SS of Canadian POW's it became a case of no quarter given or asked.



danlongman -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 5:23:55 AM)

I never heard of any order or policy in the US army pertaining to "no prisoners". From talking to vets
I know that at the platoon level and below it may have been unofficially unit policy. What bartrat said there
about Canadians is at least partly true. There was much bitter fighting between Canadian and SS units and
after the prisoner massacre at l'Abbe Ardennes by the 12SS little mercy shown or expected. When Kurt Meyer
was tried for this crime the Canadian General on the board, General Keller, did not allow the death penalty.
When astonished people asked "why?" since he had commanded 3rd Canadian Infantry Division against "Hitler Jugend"
- 12SS, he said that if Meyer had to hang for what his men had done to Canadian soldiers that he should hang for
what his men did in return. An old guy who was retiring out of the army when I came in had been with the Regina
Rifles in Normandy. He told me that after the night of June 7/8th his platoon took no prisoners.



BattleMoose -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 5:57:12 AM)

War crimes were committed by all sides in the war. Perhaps the more unsettling aspect was that only Germans,Japanese or Italians were tried for them.

More unsettling was in reference to the trial of Donitz at Nuremburg, some of the charges laid against him were dropped, when it became apparent, from Nimitz's affidavit, that the Allies had conducted their affairs in the same manner for which Donitz stood accused. I find it all very uncomfortable.



Endy -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 6:00:58 AM)

Wasn't it also the the policy for US submarine crews not only not picking up Japanese survivors but even gunning them down when possible? I even saw a WWII clip where a guy from a US sub calmly guns down a japanese survivor hanging on to some debris...

Supposedly this was because of earlier situations where they would pick up a Japanese guy and they sometimes even used granades on their rescuers, but mostly because they could not allow intel about the sub sighting to get through to Japanese command. Sort of "leave no witnesses" thing and it was pretty much an official thing...



castor troy -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 11:39:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bartrat

My great aunt was nurse and a officer who was assigned to a Army Air Corps medical evacuation unit in WW2. She served in North Africa, Italy, and France/Belgium.
I got her to talk about her experiences during the Battle of the Bulge some ten years ago. After Christmas 1944 they started flying out German POWs from Belgium to the UK for advanced care. She showed me a Iron Cross that was given to her by a German during a flight (her stories of flying to Belgium in a C-47 sitting on top of many 5 gal jerry cans loaded with gasoline was scary to me, to her it was no big deal). The wounded German POW insisted on giving her the medal. I asked her the logical question, was the POW wearing a different uniform that most of the POW's? The answer was yes. So my guess he was SS and did not want any questions about the medal when he got to England.
The reason I bring this up, is even the Germans knew at the time that the war crimes they were committing would come back to haunt them, and this is why for some American GI's the Germans deserved no kind treatment.



he may have given her the medal just because he was thankful that he received good care after being wounded? Not knowing the guy nor wanting to defend the Waffen-SS but not even in that service everyone was a
criminal. And it would be more than questionable if he would get away with it just by not carrying his Iron Cross if he would have taken part in one of the massacres of the Waffen-SS.



AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 1:41:15 PM)

I've never encountered any order from a US command that said "No Prisoners". As a matter of fact , quite the opposite. In European based US commands , there was a "rewards scale" to encourage the taking of prisoners , recognizing the intelligence value. Usually , the higher the rank , the higher the reward . For example a sergeant equivalent might get you a day off. A Major a week. A general two weeks in Paris with a promotion, etc. What might be causing confusion is "no self-endangerment" orders. So many prisoners had "faked surrendering" to get an opportunity to pull a pistol or a grenade , that it was recognized that taking a prisoner was dangerous. How this was to be interpreted was left up to the soldier.

And of course , things like Malmadey didn't encourage GI's to accept surrender. Individual NCO's may and probably did issue "no prisoners" orders. While NCO's do run an army , they don't set policy for them.

I have no idea what the SS officer was thinking. But any SS troops (along with para and mountain troops) were automatically assigned for "special questioning". That usually meant at least one interview with an experienced intelligence officer , instead of the usual "fill out the card" "questioning" that most POW's got.



bartrat -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 2:49:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: bartrat

My great aunt was nurse and a officer who was assigned to a Army Air Corps medical evacuation unit in WW2. She served in North Africa, Italy, and France/Belgium.
I got her to talk about her experiences during the Battle of the Bulge some ten years ago. After Christmas 1944 they started flying out German POWs from Belgium to the UK for advanced care. She showed me a Iron Cross that was given to her by a German during a flight (her stories of flying to Belgium in a C-47 sitting on top of many 5 gal jerry cans loaded with gasoline was scary to me, to her it was no big deal). The wounded German POW insisted on giving her the medal. I asked her the logical question, was the POW wearing a different uniform that most of the POW's? The answer was yes. So my guess he was SS and did not want any questions about the medal when he got to England.
The reason I bring this up, is even the Germans knew at the time that the war crimes they were committing would come back to haunt them, and this is why for some American GI's the Germans deserved no kind treatment.



he may have given her the medal just because he was thankful that he received good care after being wounded? Not knowing the guy nor wanting to defend the Waffen-SS but not even in that service everyone was a
criminal. And it would be more than questionable if he would get away with it just by not carrying his Iron Cross if he would have taken part in one of the massacres of the Waffen-SS.



Based on the story and all of the details (I only posted the summary of the story, the POW was insisting that my grant aunt take the medal), the POW likely did not want to be questioned about the medal. I have no idea if he was a war criminal or not; but he did not want to have the medal on him when he arrived in the UK.



Chickenboy -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 3:41:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

Wasn't it also the the policy for US submarine crews not only not picking up Japanese survivors but even gunning them down when possible? I even saw a WWII clip where a guy from a US sub calmly guns down a japanese survivor hanging on to some debris...

Supposedly this was because of earlier situations where they would pick up a Japanese guy and they sometimes even used granades on their rescuers, but mostly because they could not allow intel about the sub sighting to get through to Japanese command. Sort of "leave no witnesses" thing and it was pretty much an official thing...


Blair's work on the US submarine fleet (Silent Victory) deals with this. It was a rare occurence to surface through debris and intentionally gun down survivors. This was done a few times, but heartily discouraged by the vast majority of submarine skippers. Certainly not a 'policy' and certainly not an 'official thing'.

Don't forget that, by all accounts, the IJN was quite capable of brutality-probably moreso than the USN or other Allied navies. Many many substantiated cases of fishing an Allied aviator out of the water by an IJN destroyer, interrogating him, killing him and then dumping his body back into the sea. Not to mention the "hell ships", totally inhumane handling of prisoners by the body of the Japanese navy and so forth. The degree of 'guilt' or complicity in inhumanity is not equivalent here.

Statistically, the safest place for a German male born between the year 1900 and 1930 was in an American or British POW camp. Towards the end of the war, certainly, this was common knowledge amongst the Germans. Anything that deviated from this was counterproductive for the rank and file troops. Of course the "dead-enders" within the SS and Waffen-SS didn't care a whit for the well-being of other Wehrmacht troops. Surrendering German troops were inherently stained with cowardice in their eyes.

Ultimately, the unofficial (and understandable) lack of interest in Americans (or Canadians, Brits, etc.) taking rank-and-file Wehrmacht German soldiers prisoner was totally laid at the feet of the SS. In other words, the SS was directly responsible for thousands of German soldiers' deaths by their transgressions and the predictable response of the Western Allies.



DD696 -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 4:12:53 PM)

My stepfather, Edward Krumenacker, served in the 5th Ranger Battalion, Headquarters Company from it's inception until the end of the war. He never would talk about his experiences, only showing me his copy of the pamphlet "Lead the Way, Rangers". The only thing I remember him specifically saying was something to the effect of "Those SS bastards. When we captured them, we killed them. Otherwise they would try to kill you". Probably the result of a bad experience or of having knowledge of one (or more).



warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 4:26:29 PM)

My uncle warspite fought with the 43rd Wessex Division. He rarely spoke about the war - and sadly it is too late for me to ask him anymore - but he did tell me once about the taking of Hill 112 in Normandy.

He was very sombre as he spoke, and told me they knew they were up against SS troops. At one point he looked me in the eye and said "there were no prisoners that day boy". That statement did not invite further comment from me, and the subject was not expanded upon.

My uncle joined up with one of his brothers (my dad) at the time of Munich. He never asked to go to war, but when his country needed him he did his duty.

In July 1944 he would have been about 25 I believe. An ordinary young man, from a poor, working-class family, he was married during the war, and had one son who would have been no more than a toddler at the time.

He was twice wounded in the service of his country (the second time saw him lose a leg right at the end of the war courtesy of a land mine).

My admiration for my uncle knows no bounds. War criminal? Please......



Endy -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 4:59:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Blair's work on the US submarine fleet (Silent Victory) deals with this. It was a rare occurence to surface through debris and intentionally gun down survivors. This was done a few times, but heartily discouraged by the vast majority of submarine skippers. Certainly not a 'policy' and certainly not an 'official thing'.

Don't forget that, by all accounts, the IJN was quite capable of brutality-probably moreso than the USN or other Allied navies. Many many substantiated cases of fishing an Allied aviator out of the water by an IJN destroyer, interrogating him, killing him and then dumping his body back into the sea. Not to mention the "hell ships", totally inhumane handling of prisoners by the body of the Japanese navy and so forth. The degree of 'guilt' or complicity in inhumanity is not equivalent here.

Statistically, the safest place for a German male born between the year 1900 and 1930 was in an American or British POW camp. Towards the end of the war, certainly, this was common knowledge amongst the Germans. Anything that deviated from this was counterproductive for the rank and file troops. Of course the "dead-enders" within the SS and Waffen-SS didn't care a whit for the well-being of other Wehrmacht troops. Surrendering German troops were inherently stained with cowardice in their eyes.

Ultimately, the unofficial (and understandable) lack of interest in Americans (or Canadians, Brits, etc.) taking rank-and-file Wehrmacht German soldiers prisoner was totally laid at the feet of the SS. In other words, the SS was directly responsible for thousands of German soldiers' deaths by their transgressions and the predictable response of the Western Allies.


Perhaps you're right that these were isolated cases. I only brought it forward since I read this was a kind of recommendation/order at a certain period in the war because of A) intelligence reasons and B) because of the cases I mentioned where a survivor tries to kill his rescuers. Which, don't get me wrong here, could be sort of understandable situation and unfortunately war is always ugly...

The "practical" part is very similar for example to tank crews shooting at enemy crews jumping out of damaged/destroyed vehicles. Both sides did it very often because you just could not allow a trained and experienced tank crew to run away and jump into another vehicle. Similar things, though on smaller scale happened in the air with the shooting at bailed out guys. Again this started with September campaign 1939 with the Germans shooting at downed Polish pilots. It continued in the BoB on both sides and until the end of the war, also in the Pacific.

I agree the Allies in general (not counting the Russians here though) commited fewer war crimes than the Japanese or the Germans. I also know how the Axis forces could treat prisoners sometimes.. Anyway, it is not my intention to have a "who was worse" discussion. I just mentioned something that I've read was done in a certain period in the war for hmmm, practical reasons and because of past experiences, however bad that sounds. Not that it was any kind of sadistic thing or that the US guys were monsters in general...

Cases of killing the SS soldiers on the spot was also sort of understandable after the Normandy POW massacre. It was not a good thing but I can sort of understand the soldiers' feelings toward it. Same thing when the US guys liberating a concentration camp just shot every German they had at hand there and then, who happened to be in no way related to it (because the camp SS guards ran away earlier) but noone cared. Again, a really bad thing to do but on the other hand you can in some way understand the why in this situation.

Anyway, WWII was a terrible conflict and stuff happened on both sides that should not have happened. But I do agree with you that one side was generally more in the right in the cause and less cruel.



jcjordan -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 10:25:21 PM)

Only story my grandfather told me of his time in the Pacific as a marine before he passed was about his time on Guadalcanal. His squad was sleeping in a supposedly secure area & one night he got up to go to the head/latrine then came back afterwards & went back to sleep. He awoke the next morning to find some of his squad had had their throats cut in their sleep. His squad didn't take anymore prisoners for quite some time afterwards though there weren't many who tried to surrender anyway. Jokingly in today's terminology it'd be a shoot first ask questions later thing.



KenchiSulla -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 10:44:46 PM)

Imagine reducing humans to an animal like existence, then keeping them there. Now start to shell them, threaten their lives and kill their friends.. See the effect..

I have no combat experience but I've read enough to understand that you can't expect a rational, civilized response from a man tormented like that.. I can't, shouldn't and won't judge them. They should judge each other...



danlongman -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 10:53:30 PM)

Well there was Halsey's famous billboard on Guadalcanal i think. I exhorting US servicemen to "Kill Japanese" but
he used an abbreviation common during and after the war. Everyone thought it was a fine idea at the time and I suppose it was.
It wasn't like they were gonna give up or something.



wdolson -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 10:57:15 PM)

I have read that after the suicides by wounded Japanese on Guadalcanal, US troops in the Pacific tended to take no prisoners. However as the Solomons campaign went along, the intelligence officers came up with a rewards program to give incentives for bringing back prisoners.

Most countries gave soldiers in basic training tips on how to behave if they were captured. The Code of Bushido thought surrender was an act of cowardice no matter the situation and Japanese soldiers who found themselves prisoners ended up telling everything to their captors if they were interrogated correctly (usually with kindness and befriending the prisoner). Western troops were tougher to trick into giving up secrets, but I have read about one German interrogator who was an expert on getting US airmen to slip.

The Japanese treated Allied prisoners the same way they expected their own prisoners to be treated. As far as the Japanese were concerned prisoners were just dead people who were still breathing. It was cultural from the Code of Bushido (which was a warping of the samurai code).

After the war Japanese prisoners were allowed to go home or to any country they wanted to go to (who would take them). Most opted to go to some other country because it was a grave dishonor in Japan to come home a former POW. The few that went back to Japan often later emigrated somewhere else because of the social stigma. Many would be shunned by their own families.

It was not uncommon for soldiers in the Med and Europe to accidentally shoot someone who was surrendering. In some cases it was accidentally on purpose, other times it really was someone just worked up and they pulled the trigger when they shouldn't have.

As POWs most German and Italians knew they had it pretty good. The only ones who were difficult were the hard core Nazis. The US learned to separate them out and keep them in high security camps. The rest were often given a fair amount of freedom like work release on nearby farms. There was a case of some Italian prisoners who escaped one Christmas to have Christmas dinner with the family who they had been helping on their farm during the year. Many prisoners became friends with the Americans they were helping.

Other prisoners did work on US bases. My father said he saw Germans in desert uniforms working the food line at Wright Patterson. He said they seemed pretty happy chatting with one another and joking as they worked.

I have read that, when Germany invaded Russia the Soviets announced they would abide by the Geneva Convention, even though they were not a signatory, but Germany refused which led to a war of no quarter. Both sides committed horrible atrocities.

Bill



Icedawg -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 11:15:13 PM)

This thread is focusing on some of the many horrible acts committed by otherwise good men placed in unimaginable circumstances during the war. It's getting a bit demoralizing to read, so I figured I'd post a link to a little known act of extremely unselfish heroism to brighten things up a bit.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/german/Friedrich_Lengfeld.html



LST Express -> RE: no prisoners (5/6/2014 11:43:36 PM)

I tend to agree with Cannonfodder's sentiments when it concerns the average man caught up in the brutality of war.



aspqrz02 -> RE: no prisoners (5/7/2014 8:16:42 AM)

My training CSM when I was in the CMF (Reserves) at Uni, 1974-75, told us in one session that killing POWs was, indeed, illegal, and that once they surrendered they were POWs. However, he also noted that, in reality, in combat, especially in an opposed assault, it was wisest ... and safest ... to assume any *individual* enemy soldier who was, seemingly, attempting to surrender was, in fact, faking it and to shoot them out of hand.

Note the bit about 'individual' ...

Later in the same session, someone asked what was the safest way to surrender.

The CSMs response was, again, interesting ... he explained that, if you were an individual, there really wasn't any way to safely surrender *until the battle had passed you by* and, maybe, not even then. It was, he said, better to actually try and fight back, or at least try and find your way to a *group* of friendlies.

If you were in a group, he said, your chances of surviving a surrender attempt were much better ... especially if negotiated after the main combat forces had either passed you by or had surrounded you. Still dangerous, mind, but better. He also pointed out that it was better yet to make your group as tough to take on as possible and, if you did, the assault might well fail ... or take another direction (away from you), both of which were much better options than surrendering!

We trainees all thought this was bloody good advice (especially as he had been in the AATV in Vietnam)

Phil



Footslogger -> RE: no prisoners (5/7/2014 7:53:28 PM)

This thread is very interesting. While reading it I remembered this scene on Saving Private Ryan. If I recall, Capt. Miller didn't like his men killing prisoners, but did nothing about it.

Here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCbW7Gkgu2U




geofflambert -> RE: no prisoners (5/7/2014 10:53:11 PM)

Back to the nurse and the Iron Cross. Did it have a swastika in the center? If not, it would pose little danger to him, I think.



geofflambert -> RE: no prisoners (5/7/2014 10:55:21 PM)

Some had the SS lightning bolts in the center. That would be a problem.



bartrat -> RE: no prisoners (5/7/2014 11:19:11 PM)

No SS lighting bolts in center, looked like a Iron Cross (it was stamped 1914 on the reverse), I unfortunately have no photos of it.
The only reason I saw the medal was I was a newly wed (29 years ago) and we were honeymooning in Canada (my great aunt's home since the 1960's) and I had a book about D-Day and asked my grant aunt about her experiences. My knowledge of WW2 made her feel more comfortable (I knew many trivial details like C-47 load outs and configurations, use of beach obstructions to make rhino tanks, and the like) and she opened up about the war. I even saw her small notepad in which she kept a informal log of the evac flights she flew and how many patients on each flight. During the Battle of the Buldge she did four to six trips a day from Belgium to London.
My great aunt was a very tough person (she passed away over a decade ago).



Chickenboy -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 12:09:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

This thread is very interesting. While reading it I remembered this scene on Saving Private Ryan. If I recall, Capt. Miller didn't like his men killing prisoners, but did nothing about it.

Here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCbW7Gkgu2U


Yeah. This clip was on Omaha beach, just as the Americans were overrunning some of the German positions. The Americans had taken murderous fire for hours and seen their friends and comrades butchered without remorse.

I can imagine that any enemy on that beach should fear for their lives. Abandoning your MG because the barrel melted whilest shooting GIs, flinging up your hands and begging for mercy isn't going to result in a 'positive' outcome. The time for 'getting' had gone.

Reminiscent of this line from Unforgiven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vw7d6LSWmk

"You cowardly son-of-a-*****! You just shot an unarmed man!"
"Well he should have armed himself if he's going to decorate his saloon with (the body of) my friend."



Footslogger -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 12:18:41 AM)

And this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyuwBW9lNa8

Or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3gC0qsC6oA



warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 5:08:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

This thread is very interesting. While reading it I remembered this scene on Saving Private Ryan. If I recall, Capt. Miller didn't like his men killing prisoners, but did nothing about it.

Here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCbW7Gkgu2U


warspite1

Perfectly understandable given the hell they had just endured.....



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125