Dandelion, can you expound on this?

[Aragorn2002]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by aragorn2002:

I just want to point out that we should be careful with our judgement concerning shooting prisoners. It happened more often than we think.

Hope you find the book good value, will look forward to your impressions.

And of course thanks for the kind words regarding my countrymen; I think Dutch children know more about Canadian sacrifices in the Second World War than Canadian children do.

I have no doubt Canadian soldiers killed prisoners or at the very least unarmed men. I just would like to think, barring evidence to the contrary, that it was never systemic nor officially (if not explicitly) tolerated in the way that it apparently was in the Waffen SS. A battalion commander like Mohnke going ape and shooting prisoners is not something I would expect to read about in a Canadian history.

The closest I've come was when the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada levelled the town of Friesoythe after their very popular commanding officer was killed by a sniper there in April 1945. The entire town was destroyed (burned, I believe). I don't know if civilians were killed or not but the official historian noted with regret this incident and leads me to believe it was the greatest excess our troops were capable of at an institutional level, if I'm using that word clearly. (In other words, sanctioned by a unit or subunit commander).

Maybe such distinctions are petty but I feel it is still useful, when determining the question of the victors being the arbiters of justice. Two US soldiers were tried for war crimes after Sicily, accused of shooting prisoners. Certainly Canadian soldiers were tried for civilian murders and rapes. I'd like to think that there was no systemic shooting of unarmed men.

The only other example is the famous handcuffing order at Dieppe; so much was made about that it makes me doubt severely that any sane commander would have sanctioned the shooting of Germans out of hand.

But, like you, I know that it went on at times; just not as a sanctioned measure as in certain elements of the Waffen SS.

[Battlefront.com]

A read an account by a German Panzer crewman (Heer, not SS) about barely escaping being murdered by Canadians in Normandy. What happened was his tank was knocked out and he was wondering around and captured. The Canadians saw the death's head on his collars and thought that meant SS (which, of course, it didn't). The Canadians got into an argument about killing him or processing him as a POW. I can't remember now if he escaped during the raging debate of if a senior officer came in and clarified he was not SS, and hence avoiding the whole issue about shooting him out of hand. Not sure in which of my dozens of Normandy books I read that.

Shooting of prisoners, unfortunately, was rather common for all sides. Sometimes it was explicitely ordered, but usually it was simply tollerated by higher authorities.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Shooting of prisoners, unfortunately, was rather common for all sides. Sometimes it was explicitely ordered, but usually it was simply tollerated by higher authorities.

Steve

I think your example belies this impression. I can see it happening among the rank and file, but would consider it rare for a Canadian, British or American field grade officer to "tolerate" such behaviour. In your example, soldiers consider shooting someone they consider to be a hated SS man, until an officer comes along to set them straight.

One of the soldiers of the (IIRC) 45th Division in Sicily who went on trial stated that he felt General Patton was condoning the shooting of prisoners during one of his usual fire and brimstone speeches during the training for HUSKY.

Again, given what a contretemps the handcuffing incident was in 1942, as well as the infamous "commando order" issued by Hitler, I can't honestly believe any western allied regimental/brigade, division or higher headquarters would have "tolerated" or even suggested that prisoners not be taken.

[JasonC]

German KIA, the West 6.06.44 - 11.30.44: 66,266

German MIA, the West 6.06.44 - 11.30.44: 338,933

German WIA, the West 6.06.44 - 11.30.44: 399,860

PWs outrunning KIAs by 5 to 1 hardly sounds like no quarter, does it?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

German KIA, the West 6.06.44 - 11.30.44: 66,266

German MIA, the West 6.06.44 - 11.30.44: 338,933

German WIA, the West 6.06.44 - 11.30.44: 399,860

PWs outrunning KIAs by 5 to 1 hardly sounds like no quarter, does it?

I don't think anyone was suggesting the war in the west was no quarter nor do I find your statistics particularly useful, though.

There were instances where "no quarter" was a general perception - after Malmedy, and among Third Canadian Division in Normandy - but I would be most interested in seeing evidence that regimental or higher officers would condone killing unarmed prisoners. I think that any "incidents" would likely be local in nature and done immediately following an armed engagement - certainly not after an interrogation as was the case in some of the 12th SS murders in Normandy.

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

CCA 2nd armored was fresh, an "old" pattern US AD. Two task forces were engaged. The expected composition would therefore be 2 AIBs in halftracks, 1 battalion of Stuarts and another of Shermans, supported by 18 105s. Each TF might also have had a TD platoon and an armored cavalry platoon.

Minor point: AIUI, the 105s didn't become available till later in the year. The TOE allowed for them, but their place was filled with 75mms in the meantime.

[Battlefront.com]

POWs most likely to be murdered were those encountered in exceptional circumstances. For example, getting a hold of the crew of a lone enemy tank that was left behind afer a particullarly strong assault. Or a deep patrol that surprised a number of enemy soldiers. Or, as was the case at least one time in Italy, when the soldiers were being escorted by a particullarly lazy individual (a US SGT just marched them around corner, to the edge of a cliff, and shot them instead of marching up and down the mountain road).

As for senior Allied officers condoning breaking the Geneva Convention by murdering prisoners... well, at the very least the US order this done from very high up (stretching memory.. but I think it was Bradley) after the Malmady Massacre. There are no estimates, but it is probable that many THOUSANDS of German soldiers were murdered over a period of, IIRC, weeks.

I have no idea if the Brits or Canadians did anything similar, but I would not rule out mid level officers having done something like this from time to time. In every barrel there are bad apples. I don't care if the apples come from the US, Canada, or wherever. The Germans and Soviets might have actually stocked their barrels with rotten apples, but that doesn't mean everbody else's barrels were all good eating.

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

Here is another interesting quote from 'It never snows in September', by Robert J.Kershaw, excellent read by the way (translated out of the German language, since I have the German language version of this book)"

"The Americans didn't behave in a different fashion as we were already used to. They threw our wounded from the bridge in the Waal (river at Nijmegen, the book handles operation Market Garden) and shot the few prisoners among the Heeres-Ersatzleuten (probably troops from the replacement battalion, not entirely sure).

Another quote:

"The wounded lying on the bridge were brutally mutilated. Accourding to statements from Leutnant Schulz and Von Albrecht they had stab wounds on the head, neck and heart area."

I've read quite a few accounts like these in the past years.

It puts Malmedy in a rather different light. It doesn't make the German war crimes any less disgusting, but it puts it more in perspective, I guess.

[ July 17, 2005, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]

[Battlefront.com]

"History is written by the victors"

The interesting thing about German behavior in the West is that it was, in most circumstances, quite different than behavior in the East. In the East it was quite routine to burn down towns and slaughter civilians and POWs. But these same troops, when moved to the West, for the most part did not behave that way. The East was a totally different kind of conflict. There the gloves were off from the very start and each side's military (as opposed to nasty folks like Einsatzgruppen and NKVD) behaved fairly poorly overall in terms of respecting the Geneva Convention.

Still, as bad as it was in the East it could have been MUCH worse. The bulk of German commanders realized there was no honor in killing unarmed poeple, and a few enlightened officers saw benefits from forging positive relations with the local populace. And for the most part, the Red Army was pretty good too compared to how bad they COULD have been.

As for the Malmedy Massacre... the story that is in most textbooks is factually wrong (not to mention the movie Battle of the Bulge, which was a joke anyway). It is based on the propaganda version of events that was purposefully crafted to get Americans to "hate" the Germans. Up until that point there was a realization that even American troops fighting against the Germans did not hate them as a group. Many in higher echelons of civilian and military leadership thought that was a bad thing and sought to change it. When the Malmedy Massacre was discovered, it was leveraged for all it was worth (and a lot beyond that) to acheive this end. Although the Germans were never hated as much as the Japanese (racisim played a huge role here) the Malmedy incident really did change things.

The truth of Malmedy will never be known. It's been a long time since I studied the various accounts and findings, but in a nutshell it was likely an accident. Young, and to some extent inexperienced, troops were left alone and without leadership to watch over a very large group of POWs. Due to Human nature, and the way the Americans were situated, some decided they could escape unnoticed. It is standard knowledge that the best chance of escape is immediately after capture, so it is very logical to think that after standing around guarded by a fairly small number of enemy from one direction some figured this was their chance. Then the Germans fired, more Americans broke (some escaping), and then the Germans went into the field to finish the job.

The other plausible story is that a very low level commander, perhaps a mere SGT, figured that the only way they could unload the POWs was to murder them. This is quite possible also. It could be that they were in the process of thinking about this when an escape attempt was made (there appears to be no doubt that SOME tried to escape), and that hurried the decision along. But there is no evidence that this was a higher level decision made by senior SS commanders.

One interesting thing to consider is the sloppiness of the killing. Personally, I believe that if the Germans had intended on killing every last American in that field they would have. Firing at ranks of standing men from one side is a rather stupid way to go about things. Even a few men on the flanks and around back would have ensured far greater results. In documented attrocities comitted by Germans, both in the East and West, the commanders of the operations did in fact take these sorts of steps to ensure that the job was done thoroughly. If a building was available they would use that, post guards around it, and then set it afire or throw in explosives, shooting anybody that escaped.

So, the real situation is likely:

1. Panicky overreaction to a small escape attempt, followed by a deliberate cover up "kill the survivors" operation.

2. Very low level decision to kill the POWs instead of hanging arond guarding them.

3. A combo of the two, where the Germans were in the process of getting ready for the slaughter, but prematurely had to start it due to an escape attempt.

The real story won't ever be known, but one thing is for sure... the official line at the time was totally distorted. It is that distorted version that is most commonly known.

Steve

P.S. I quickly found this well written article on the Net:

http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blmassacreatmalmedy/

[Aragorn2002]

As for the Malmedy Massacre... the story that is in most textbooks is factually wrong (not to mention the movie Battle of the Bulge, which was a joke anyway).QUOTE

Steve, do you mean Saints and soldiers?

[Aragorn2002]

Interesting article. Well written indeed.

[Michael Dorosh]

The Malmedy Massacre was instigated by a tank gunner named Fleps if memory serves; Steve is correct in that it was not a systematic execution but the result of nervous soldiers.

I still don't think there is much evidence to suggest that the killing of prisoners by American, British, Canadian, French, Polish, Czech etc. troops in western Europe was "tolerated" by higher headquarters nor would I suggest it "never" happened in the field. I still think the moral compass differentiates between acts like Malmedy - happening very soon after capture by soldiers low down on the food chain - and the deliberate execution sanctioned by, or even commited by, headquarters officer farther from the battle line in both time and space.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, do you mean Saints and soldiers?

No, I was speaking generally. In English the term "text book" means books specifically written for schools. History text books written for primary schools are generally very poor quality. They give only the most superficial view of the world's history and often contain a lot of bad information, stereotypes, and outright factual errors. Also, because the history text books are what are called "survey" books, meaning that they attempt to cover a lot of history in few pages, there is a problem with emphasis.

WWII coverage, for example, might only be a single chapter in a book. A full page may be dedicated to the Battle of the Bulge, with only one paragraph mentioning Malmedy. How can one really understand something so complex in a few paragraphs? It is impossible. Worse, because a page is dedicated to the Bulge, but perhaps only one page to the entire Eastern Front, the young student will have a very bad understanding of the relative importance of each.

As for killing POWs and civilians... I also see a difference between higher level and lower level responsibility. I also see a difference between "heat of the moment" and systemic behavior. For example, at one point the 4th Marines in the PTO bragged that they never took a single Japanese soldier prisoner. Did someone high up in the Marines order such behavior? No, this was most certainly bottom up. In the end, it is no different than if a General ordered the execution of any Japanese soldier who sought to surrender. Worse, bottom up is more likely to produce consistent results compared with top down orders.

Anyway... this is an interesting topic that can be discussed forever. I'll bow out now

Steve

[JasonC]

JonS - um, no, the 18 105s are Priests not Shermans. That is one armored field artillery battalion firing in support. In CMAK terms, 3 105mm FOs...

[juan_gigante]

Steve, I honestly wish that the Bulge got a full page in most history textbooks. A few years ago back in high school, I was a teacher's assistant for our Advanced Placement U.S. History teacher. The primary textbook had about three sentences for the Bulge. Of course, I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "In December of 1944, Hitler launched his final push against the Allies in Western Europe. His tanks managed to surround a large number of Allied troops, who were cut off without supply or reinforcement for several weeks before an Allied assault broke thorugh. After the Battle of the Bulge, it was clear that Hitler no longer had any chance to win in the West." I think it's kind of too bad that history book writers feel that something like the Bulge can be summed up in three sentences, but that's how it goes. And on the killing of POWS, I think many cases may have been because of rumors. In "The Battle For The Ruhr Pocket", by Leo Kessler, he tells a story about General Maurice Rose of the 3rd Armored Division, who was taken as a POW after being ambushed. Rose was shot by accident by a nervous SS soldier. Rumor got out that he had been executed because Rose was a jew. Apparently, many men of the 3rd Armored decided they would no longer take POWs if they were SS troops after that. Or another example, of an small (company-sized) SS unit that got cut off behind enemy lines. The SS troops found a French hospital, and spent the night there. Rumor got out that the SS men had raped all the nurses, killed the doctors, and burned the place down after their orgy of destruction. When that unit was found, they were killed to the man. It was only realized later that, whoops, that didn't happen. Anyways, I think that nearly all executions of prisoners would be a bottom-up sort of thing. The angry GI whose friend was killed by a sniper probably wouldn't be too concilatory when that sniper was captured. That sort of thing would have happened much more than, say a division commander ordering that POWs weren't really necessary.

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

JonS - um, no, the 18 105s are Priests not Shermans. That is one armored field artillery battalion firing in support. In CMAK terms, 3 105mm FOs...

Ah. I thought you meant 105mm Shermans.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting modern look at where General Rose was killed:

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/rose.section/rose.point.index

Steve

[juan_gigante]

One of Rose's aides who survived the encounter told an interesting little tale. Apparently in the dim light Rose's party at first thought the Tiger was a Pershing; they knew that there were several in the area. It was only when they were quite close that the driver noticed that the tank they were approaching had two exhausts, and the Pershing only had one. It was only then that they started to take evasive actions. And even so, Rose didn't have to take the route he selected. The group he was with was threatened, and Rose's artillery commander, Colonel Frederic Brown advised Rose to retreat to the rear. Rose pointed out that the Tigers attacking their position seemed to be retreating, and that he would go that way in hopes of linking up with the relief force. Unfortunately, relief force was not wher it was expected and Rose's group got lost. Lesson learned: if in close contact with the enemy at night, don't get lost.

[Battlefront.com]

Actually the Lesson Learned is... if you aren't travelling around in a heavily armed and mobile fighting formation, don't get lost anywhere near a combat area. That is the lesson Artillery Observation Battalion Battery B learned in Malmedy, and almost 60 years later it was what the 507th Maintenance Company learned in Iraq. Bad luck can rarely be improved upon when you're driving around in tincans with pop guns and the enemy has you fixed in their sights.

Steve

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

The angry GI whose friend was killed by a sniper probably wouldn't be too concilatory when that sniper was captured.

A classic example of this occured in teh last few months of WW1 - an Australian unit assaulted and captured a concrete bunker - the crew surendered and were outside, hands up and unarmed.

An Aussie officer approached the position, and was shot and killed by the crew in the _2nd storey" of het bunker - the surrendered soldiers were from the 1st storey/ground floor.

The Australian soldiers bayonetted the lot of them on the spot - and even "dramatically" showen in an Australian TV series on WW1 a decade or so ago.

**** happens

Another unsavory incident from WW2 occured when a New Zealand Brigade made a breakout on foot in hte desert - unfortunately a German field hospital lay in their path - hte soldiers weer doped up and went through it killing everything in their path - NZ survivors recall being terrified of being wounded in case they fell down - everything on the ground was being bayonetted, and every tent grenaded.

The Germans sent pamphlets over hte NZ lines after this complaining of the barbaric behaviour, and a captured NZ officer was given a thorough "dressing down" by a German General, but AFAIK there were no retaliations

On yet another occasion an italian attack penetrated tyhe lines of the Maori Bn, and a grenade was thrown into a hut containing wounded Maori. The captured Italian survivors were thrown from a cliff in retaliation.

[painfbat]

Reading all those "incidents" by the Allied forces I have some questions:

==================================================

OTHER LOSSES

by James Bacque

Stoddart Publishing Toronto,

Canada ISBN 0-7737-2269-6

"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annahilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."

Col. Ernest F. Fisher, PhD. Lt. 101 st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army

==================================================- Are these really Col. Fishers words ?

- When did he say this and in what context?

What surprised me even more is to find that October 23rd 1954 in Paris the USA, GB, F and Germany signed a "law" that doesn't allow Germany to bring to justice allied soldiers or people who in order to help the Allied forces commited war-crimes against Germans. Worse, it commited the German government to with all means enforce this "law". (Oberleitungsvertrag, May 31 1955 Bundesgesetzblatt II, page 405 ff.)

- as I only have a Dutch source for this I would like to ask a German member to response to this "law" and correct me if I'm wrong.

[melb_will]

I would love to know if the above quote is true.

Just to provide a contrast to the western front, I have been re-reading 'A barstad of a place' about the Papuan campaign. During the defence of Milne Bay Lt-Col Cummings ordered his men not to take prisioners. It is interesting that this raised no eyebrows either at the time or now. Compare this to a similar order on the Western Front.

Interesting that the Germans managed to maintain an perception that they were the honourable enemy and that the Japanese were the dishonourable ones.

Will

[Michael Dorosh]

Bacques book has been debunked.

[JasonC]

Actually the lesson is never bring up anything having to do with morality in a discussion of WW II. Another thread blown to heck, and I must plead guilty to setting it off.

Is anyone even the slightest bit interested in the twin fights at Caretan and outside Caen, compare and constrast fashion?