no prisoners

[Icedawg]

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/Friedr ... gfeld.html

[LST Express]

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

[aspqrz02]

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]

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]

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]

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

[bartrat]

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]

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]

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

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

[warspite1]

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.....

[Sakai007]

My grandfather told me of a Japanese pilot they were trying to pull out of the water after an attack on their ship (He was on a Fletcher class, USS Ingersoll DD-652) and when they got him close he blew himself up with a hidden hand grenade. After this they would only pull in dead air crew, and if they were alive in the water they weren't for long I imagine.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

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 ... es-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-m ... -bulge.htm

Regards,

Klink, Oberst

As a matte rof fact, there was no malmedy massacre. US interrogation Teams tortoured captured SS-men for getting their massacre confessed.
About 100 POW got their testivcles damaged beyond repair. A shame for the US Army about the same league as Abu Grahib.
Your Boys weren´t angels.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

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 ... es-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-m ... -bulge.htm

Regards,

Klink, Oberst

As a matte rof fact, there was no malmedy massacre. US interrogation Teams tortoured captured SS-men for getting their massacre confessed.
About 100 POW got their testivcles damaged beyond repair. A shame for the US Army about the same league as Abu Grahib.
Your Boys weren´t angels.

What are your sources?

[AW1Steve]

ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@]

warspite1

Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@]

Agreed.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@]

warspite1

Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences.

Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

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 ... es-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-m ... -bulge.htm

Regards,

Klink, Oberst

As a matte rof fact, there was no malmedy massacre. US interrogation Teams tortoured captured SS-men for getting their massacre confessed.
About 100 POW got their testivcles damaged beyond repair. A shame for the US Army about the same league as Abu Grahib.
Your Boys weren´t angels.

That´s faulty logic.

The treatment of SS POW is NO indication on whether the Malmedy massacre did happen, or not.


There were surviving eyewitnesses of the POW executions, there were dead bodies shot in the head at close range. Call it Malmedy massacre or something else, but it was a war crime.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@]

warspite1

Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences.

Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@]

while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why?

What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:]

Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian.

Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals.

[Chickenboy]

AW1Steve,

To try to get this back on track, a legalese question? Perhaps something for a certain JAG to weigh in on? [;)]

It seems to me that 'surrender' is like a contract of sorts. "I'll stop fighting you and surrender to you, if you treat me humanely" is the basic crux of the 'surrender contract' as I see it. Both parties need to understand their roles in the contract and have a meeting of the minds. The contract needs to be accepted by both parties in order for it to be held by both parties.

For oral contracts (it would be easier if it was written out, obviously), there must come a meeting of the minds. Does that happen when one party throws up hands and yells "Camerade" or "I surrender, don't shoot!" or is it something else?

What does military jurisprudence tell us about the transition between enemy combatant and EPW?