![:[]](./images/smilies/icon_study.gif "Study"){kind=icon}
helmut
Allies war crimes in D Day Beaches?
Moderator: John W. Howard
-
Helmut Von Moltke
Allies war crimes in D Day Beaches?
hi, in the movie "Saving Private Ryan", it shows US soldiers summararily executing some captured German (Czech) soldiers surrendering. I wonder if this sort of thing really happened on D Day on the beaches, or is this just some sort of invented thing for the audience to reflect on? thanks for any help
helmut
helmut
There have never been any suggestions that UK or Cdn soldiers did such things there, and there beaches were probably too well organised for it to go un-noticed.
It is sometimes a fine line between soldiers that have surrendered and those that haven't. That line is generally stretched by soldiers who have experienced surrenderers who were not quite what they seemed.
It is sometimes a fine line between soldiers that have surrendered and those that haven't. That line is generally stretched by soldiers who have experienced surrenderers who were not quite what they seemed.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi HvM,
All that can be said with certainty is that more of this sort of thing must go on on all sides than is actually documented.
In certain circumstances where the safe securing of prisoners without compromising one's own security was problematical (i.e. for airborne forces or in constricted beachheads) there was a certain pragmatic imperative not to become encumbered with prisoners. High casualties amongst the captors also contributes. Utah Beach on D-Day certainly qualifies as a possible time and place where such factors may have contributed to such killings. By comparison, the other four D-Day beaches, British, American and Canadian alike, were much more easily secured at lower cost and such was the speed of penetration inland that they were never so constricted as to make the holding and sending back of prisoners problematical.
Cheers,
Sid.
All that can be said with certainty is that more of this sort of thing must go on on all sides than is actually documented.
In certain circumstances where the safe securing of prisoners without compromising one's own security was problematical (i.e. for airborne forces or in constricted beachheads) there was a certain pragmatic imperative not to become encumbered with prisoners. High casualties amongst the captors also contributes. Utah Beach on D-Day certainly qualifies as a possible time and place where such factors may have contributed to such killings. By comparison, the other four D-Day beaches, British, American and Canadian alike, were much more easily secured at lower cost and such was the speed of penetration inland that they were never so constricted as to make the holding and sending back of prisoners problematical.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Alex Coles
- Associate
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: England
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
I've spoken to a number of British WW2 vets and one or two of them have mentioned shooting German troops who were attemping to surrender.
This happened when taking enemy positions in which a number of their mates had been killed or wounded.
If the Germans tried to surrender at the last minute, the soldiers sometimes wouldn't show them mercy, their view being. they had left it too late.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was common in most armies during WW2
This happened when taking enemy positions in which a number of their mates had been killed or wounded.
If the Germans tried to surrender at the last minute, the soldiers sometimes wouldn't show them mercy, their view being. they had left it too late.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was common in most armies during WW2
if in doubt, PANIC !!!!
I tend to agree with redcoat. Much depends on soldiers' own psyche, as well.
Once I found memoirs of A. Adamus - one of Polish 2nd. Corps soldiers during battle of Monte Cassino. And I have to admit, it stucked in my memory...
Tense is a bit messy, but I tried to stick to original as much as possible.
The same event is described in a book "Bitwa o Monte Cassino" by Melchior Wankowicz:
Once I found memoirs of A. Adamus - one of Polish 2nd. Corps soldiers during battle of Monte Cassino. And I have to admit, it stucked in my memory...
sourceWe're on hill 593. Me and three my soldiers, using the terrain, managed to approch the back entrance of the bunker. Suddenly a German hidden in thicket is spotted on our right. There's second one, third, fourth - all shooting at our men of 2nd. platoon.
There's no time for thinking, attack is swift. Opponent is no other than of elite units of SS Hermann-Goering division, "green devils" that quickly cope with surprise.
Hand-to-hand combat, no rules, no quarter, quick death at ones hand reach. German strikes me with a pistol grip a fraction of second too late. I forestall his hit and smash to pieces stock of my Thompson on his head. He falls to the ground, blood pouring out of his fractured head - no chance for survivng such a blow. His strike, devoid of impetus, left only a minor bruise on my chin. Adrenaline drops. I look around and can see blood, scattered pieces of weapon and lots of empty shells - they hadn't been here in vain. My men coped equally well.
Germans beg for life, they're wounded and all bear signs of strikes. I come closer to check whether they have concealed weapon when suddenly one of them draws a handgrenade out of his bandadges and throws it at us. Tired and taken completely by surprise we didn't even move. Luckily, the grenade lands in a pile of stones that reduced effects of explosion - nevertheless my leg and buttocks are wounded.
German that threw grenade is completely confused by ineffectiveness of his attack. Something breaks in him and he starts to cry, yelp and beg for life. He shows a photo of a woman with child.
- I left a couple like this at home, and through you I answer to that.
He looks at me, not understanding what I'm saying to him. I ask:
- Do you know who we are?
- English?! - answers the one that threw the grenade.
- No. Polish.
- O mein got (I left it as in original /Njorl)
I walked a bit away to see what's going on at foot of the hill. A moment later I heard 3 shots.
Tense is a bit messy, but I tried to stick to original as much as possible.
The same event is described in a book "Bitwa o Monte Cassino" by Melchior Wankowicz:
Spandau is silenced by grenades thrown at it. And on the other side, where team advances, enemy fire is opened. Fighting back, corporal's Adamus team destroys German MG position, killing 4 of its crew
-
Helmut Von Moltke
-
Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
Helmut, it may be a little off topic, but it illustrates the point of the thread.Helmut Von Moltke wrote:Njorl, even though this is a bit off- topic, that polish veteran is classically wrong , the Hermann Goring Panzer Division was not a Waffen SS Division! Shame that even veterans could get such obvious things wrong...
I took another look, and I don't see where anyone claimed HG was Waffen-SS. Did you see something I didn't?
-
Helmut Von Moltke
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Error
Hey Guys:
Another error: If I am not mistaken the "Green Devils" were Fallschirmjägers, not men of the Hermann Göring Division.
Another error: If I am not mistaken the "Green Devils" were Fallschirmjägers, not men of the Hermann Göring Division.
John W. Howard
-
Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
A few random thoughts in this vein:
1. Taking prisoners in opposed attacks is always problematical. What if one gruppe in one trench have had enough and decide to throw up their hands but the bulk of the position is still fighting? Practically speaking, such men usually cower in the bottom of their holes until the shooting tapers off, hoping to be able to surrender then, I suppose, but even that is chancing. Infantrymen fighting through the objective are likely to grenade or fire into the bottom of trenches to "clear" such men. Holding one's hands up when others all around are still firing has its obvious difficulties. Also, of course, drawing the fine line between surrendering "during" the action and "safely after" is also a bit of a grey area in practice. Searching and securing potentially armed and hostile enemy soldiers is also a dodgy business. The up shot of all this is that individual battlefield surrenders in an opposed attack are difficult and dicey business.
2. Recognizing this, in practice the law of armed conflict tends to focus upon the treatment of prisoners after they have come into the captors' possession. Strictly speaking, soldiers should always accept a proper offer to surrender and then safeguard the resulting prisoners properly. Practically speaking, as described above, that is more easily said than done, even without considering the emotional issues of the heat of the moment.
3. I, like Sid, am sure that there were some acts of shooting by Allied soldiers that were not strictly in keeping with the laws of armed conflict. How many? At this point impossible to itemize comprehensively, but I would stress the point that falls out of para 2 above -- we can say more about the Allied treatment of German POWs after they were safely in Allied possession.
1. Taking prisoners in opposed attacks is always problematical. What if one gruppe in one trench have had enough and decide to throw up their hands but the bulk of the position is still fighting? Practically speaking, such men usually cower in the bottom of their holes until the shooting tapers off, hoping to be able to surrender then, I suppose, but even that is chancing. Infantrymen fighting through the objective are likely to grenade or fire into the bottom of trenches to "clear" such men. Holding one's hands up when others all around are still firing has its obvious difficulties. Also, of course, drawing the fine line between surrendering "during" the action and "safely after" is also a bit of a grey area in practice. Searching and securing potentially armed and hostile enemy soldiers is also a dodgy business. The up shot of all this is that individual battlefield surrenders in an opposed attack are difficult and dicey business.
2. Recognizing this, in practice the law of armed conflict tends to focus upon the treatment of prisoners after they have come into the captors' possession. Strictly speaking, soldiers should always accept a proper offer to surrender and then safeguard the resulting prisoners properly. Practically speaking, as described above, that is more easily said than done, even without considering the emotional issues of the heat of the moment.
3. I, like Sid, am sure that there were some acts of shooting by Allied soldiers that were not strictly in keeping with the laws of armed conflict. How many? At this point impossible to itemize comprehensively, but I would stress the point that falls out of para 2 above -- we can say more about the Allied treatment of German POWs after they were safely in Allied possession.
-
Benoit Douville
- Contributor
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:50 pm
- Location: Montréal
I have to agree with Sid and Redcoat. I am pretty sure that the Allied soldiers did shoot German soldiers who tried to surrender on D-Day, I think it really happened, I am pretty sure that some Allied soldiers were so angry at the Germans and particularly at Omaha beach that they wanted some revenge for their comrade who have been killed by machine gun from the bunker on the beach.
Regards
Regards