Wars and Conflicts permalink
Prisoners during the Normandy Campaign
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
there are reports that during the Normandy campaign many Allied prisoner's (esp snipers and SS types) never made it to the rear. Was this a common practise, eye for an eye? -
Message 2
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
As in all wars, it probably happened on both sides.
I remember reading one book where someone described a drunken German soldier coming down the road on a bicycle. He took him prisoner and handed him over to some rear echelon Allied soldiers. They took him away, he heard a burst of gun fire and later found the body behind the building.
Of course the Germans had a reputation of killing many large groups of PoWs in cold blood, this resulted in some Allied units (whose comrades had been victims of the Germans or had found groups of murdered Allied soldiers) deciding that they would not take any German prisoners.
MB -
Message 3
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
I believe that FWW German soldiers, captured by either British or French troops, with serrated edge bayonets in their kit were routinely 'bumped-off', often after being disfigured or mutilated with their own weapon.
(I've heard that from my great uncle and seen it in print somewhere...)
I believe captured snipers come in for a tough time too? -
Message 4
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
I would imagine that it happens fairly often in war. It can't be easy to switch off from the hot-blooded fury of battle to the delicacies of surrender. Certainly there is at least some evidence that it has happened in Iraq recently. It has happened throughout history really.
RE: World War One, the Germans used to have POWs that they didn't declare as such and used to use for war work near the front line. So I guess the treatment of POWs even that recently was fairly fluid even between western European nations. -
Message 5
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
Ps. Why were Germans with serrated-edge bayonets singled out?
-
Message 6
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 8th June 2009
I think that once the muck and bullets start flying surrendering (against any opposition) is a very dangerous thing to do for a number of reasons.
a) You probably have just killed some of his mates
b) The advancing enemy will be in a mixture of terror/rage - not condusive to a reasoned humane approach, the advancing squaddies will be so pscyched (is that a word?) that any enemy will get a burst, arms up in the air or not.
c) If the advancing troops are are thinking analytically, enemy soldiers wandering about behind them (unarmed does not come into it - there will be plenty of weapons and ammo lying about) will be the last thing they want, so how do you deal with them - detach a member of your understrength unit to escort them back or 'neutralize' the threat?
This weekend they were interviewing survivors of D-Day. They had a german veteran of Omaha beach - he was one of only two survivors of his unit on that day. Now when you consider they were fighting from behind concrete fortifications you might wonder why so few survived. Personally, knowing what happened at Omaha I'm suprised there were even two that got away with their lives.
Ordinary men can do some pretty terrible things when put into impossible situations,you don't have to be wounded to beecome a casualty of war. -
Message 7
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 8th June 2009
"...Ps. Why were Germans with serrated-edge bayonets singled out?..."
I believe that this is referred to in 'All's Quiet On The Western Front'.
Serrated bayonets were believed to cause particularly nasty wounds. Whether it is true or not is another matter. -
Message 8
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Monday, 8th June 2009
As far as I know, the stories about killing prisoners who were found to possess bayonets with serrated edges does have some truth. The serrated edge was actually meant to be used to cut wires rather than to make wounds more painful.
Possession of ‘dum dum’ ammunition was usually a guarantee of being shot out of hand (possibly using the bullets) as was the possession of equipment or belongings looted from dead enemy soldiers.
Every army gave snipers and flamethrower operators short shrift. Being part of the crew of almost any heavy weapon was dangerous on surrendering. Killing SS prisoners was a matter of course.
In fact, it seems that there’s about a 50% chance of anyone surrendering getting killed there and then and it can be for reasons as simple as keeping a steel helmet on or giving a captor a funny look.
Richard Holmes’s ‘Acts of War’ and John Ellis’s ‘The Sharp End’ are both good on this. The first one has a quote from a WWI Tommy’s letter which goes something like:
“They all yelled ‘Camerad’ which is ‘I give up’ in their language. But they had to have it, mother.
Anyway that is enough for now,
Your loving Albert.†-
Message 9
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 8th June 2009
Am I right in thinking that flamethrowing infantry and flamethrower-tank crews on either side were given little mercy if captured?
Clearly soldiers in the field have clear views on the acceptability of some weapons over others. Also of percieved cynicism when surrendering.
I recall stories of German machine gunners in WWI pouring fire into oncoming Allied troops until the ammo ran out and then surrendering to those same soldiers with cried of 'Camerad!' Again they got short shrift - again I think I heard this in a Richard Holmes programme.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 10
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 8th June 2009
Hi Clankylad - just spotted you mentioned flamethrowers too!
-
Message 11
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Monday, 8th June 2009
A friend of mine knew a Canadian D-Day veteran who suffered for years from bad dreams. He would wake up shouting "Those poor b***ards, those poor b***ards..".
Apparently on D-Day as a private he had accepted the surrender of a number of Germans. His NCO told him that they could not handle prisoners at the time (too few men, too little time, no safe area to hold them, etc), and that he should not have accepted their surrender.
The prisoners he had taken were sent down the road, and shot on the spot.
I have no reason to disbelieve the story, and I remind myself that saying "I surrender" does not obligate the enemy to accept your surrender.
Of course if you accept the surrender you should keep your word. Which is why one tried to surrender to a senior officer, and not a buck private whose decision could be overruled. -
Message 12
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 8th June 2009
Andrew, my father was a Machine Gunner during WW1 and he told me the Machine Gunners were the 'Death and Glory Boys' during that War much as Commandos and Paratroopers in WW2, he said the Infantry hated them as of the line was being reenforced with machine guns they would be preparing to go, 'Over the Top', and machine guns brought fire from enemy artillery. (Both Doubtful Pleasures) If the trenches were being vacated owing to retreat the machine gunners were left behind as, 'Sacrifice Guns', meaning stay there as long as the ammunition held out then retreat as fast as you can bringing the machine gun if able.
An American Infantryman who had taken part in landings on islands occupied by Japanese forces in the Pacific, said on TV that every evening they would go over ground where they fought and all Japanese soldiers whether dead or wounded or otherwise, were shot in the head and left there as the body may be booby trapped, as one could never trust them. -
Message 13
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 8th June 2009
MattJ18
Ps. Why were Germans with serrated-edge bayonets singled out?Â
My great uncle's explanation was that in an era before antibiotics a stab/deep puncture wound to the duodenum/bowel was always followed by infection and often death.
To be stabbed by a barbed-edged bayonet meant that your intestines became entangled with the blade on the in-stroke and your 'innards' were pulled outside the body cavity into a septic and drying environment as the rifle and blade were pulled back out (as per basic training).
G-uncle said that ALL the men he saw injured in this way died slow deaths from infection and septicaemia unles the abdominal aorta was severed, in which case death would be rapid and fairly painless.
I believe, but cannot be sure, that German infantrymen were routinely issued with this kit after about 1916. So they were not choosing it but were expected to carry it. No doubt word travelled fast and Germans must have known that to surrender in possession of such a tool would be regarded as a sign of 'uber' brutality and fanaticism.
Gut wounds have always been feared in war.
In the American Civil War corpses of both sides were found with their clothes in complete disarray. At first this was thought to be survivors robbing the dead after searching them, but it turned out (as well as the above) to be due to a wounded man desperately searching for the site of his wound.
A wounded soldier would have known the odds...
Muscle, bone, small blood vessel, epidermis:-some hope of living.
Gut wound:- slow painful death by fever. -
Message 14
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Monday, 8th June 2009
U3280211: I still reckon the serrated edge was meant to be a practical thing to break wire or maybe use as a saw rather than inflict worse wounds. After all, if it reaches the point where people are bayoneting each other then the people who get bayoneted are as good as dead whatever the bayonet is like.
-
Message 15
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
"...I still reckon the serrated edge was meant to be a practical thing to break wire or maybe use as a saw rather than inflict worse wounds..."
Possibly. But hardly the point. You could hardly avoid using the serrated bit for its other purpose, of killing the enemy. -
Message 16
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
You need to understand the total hatred of the enemy by 1944, the fear of landing on a beach with dug in enemy waiting for them and the usual shortage of men.
Most D.Day men said they thought it was a one way ticket and even on Sunday at the anniversary parade it was muted again.
Very few Infantry attacks started with a full compliment of men and often they were down by as much as 40%.
At the start line the order advance to contact meant they were at a disadvantage straight off so prisoners would not only hold them up but also be dangerous in the fact that once the line passed through they could overwhelm the back up sections.
Better safe than sorry unless your brigade was right up behind you which it often was not.
Considering a lot of the German Divisions comprised of SS men and Hitler Youth it surprises me we took any prisoners at all in that early fighting.
Yes Host, if you had ever seen a burnt and blackened body you would not have altruistic feelings for flame thrower crews either.
Frank. -
Message 17
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
"Considering a lot of the German Divisions comprised of SS men and Hitler Youth it surprises me we took any prisoners at all in that early fighting."
There were relatively few Waffen SS troops involved in the early part of the Normandy battles when compared to Heer & Luftwaffe ground troops, even if you take the campaign as a whole only about 1 in 10 or fewer of the troops involved were Waffen SS. -
Message 18
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
I would not argue with that statement, only from day one rumours of Canadian and British prisoners being massacred were bandied about.
When pushing forward with your guts turned to water you do not check cap badges nor do you risk a grenade coming at you.
Different rules apply in those situations, "shoot first ask questions later" was the watch word long before WW1 or 2.
Frank. -
Message 19
Posted by redced (U7864573) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
The situation can be comparted to that faced by Henry V at Agincourt when he ordered that French prisoners be killed late on in the battle when it looked as though the French army was massing for a further attack. he didn't want to take the chance of prisoners suddenly picking up weapons and attacking his troops in the rear. As a result Henry has been villified in some quarters ever since.
-
Message 20
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
Henry V at Agincourt is an interesting case. Back then prisoners were routinely taken for their ransom and so the massacre was carried out extremely reluctantly by his soldiers. In Western Europe we have, for centuries, had a relatively 'gentlemanly' take on the enemy surrendering and once the heat of battle had subsided it has been seen as very wrong to mistreat or kill the prisoners or those trying to surrender. The only exception I can think of is sieges where massacres were accepted, even encouraged.
-
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
There is a double edged side on wether to kill surrendering troops or not. One the one hand it is true that a detachement of 500 men when capturing 100 men cannot control them easily especially when advancing in enemy lines thus killing is more convenient (such detachement do not carry anyway things to lock people in, prisoners also need to be fed!!!).
However there is the other side. My maternal grandfather was a low-rank officer (called up for war, not a professional of course) in the army that fought the invading Italian army in Epirus. He was assigned in the "mountain canons", light canons dragged by some... conscript mules (poor animals suffering of hunger and cold of the winter!!! actually men dragged the mules who dragged the mules)... anyway, they had attacked several Italian positions well into Italian lines and captured quite many Italian prisoners.
At first, they treated very well Italian prisoners. Italians were neither the age old enemies Turkish, nor Bulgarians and while they where considered as "sneaky cunning latin catholics" there was not any age old hatred - Italians on the other tried to convince Greeks they were anti-fascist (for some of them true maybe) and hated Muscolini and "una fatsa una ratsa" and "why we fight?", thus they were treated well up to the point of circulating semi-free among Greek ranks, and some Greek soldiers sharing their own scarce supplies... however as the war progressed and the army progressed and more prisoners were caught the supply lines got longer, the winter colder and things more tense. One morning my grandfather woke up to see all Italian prisoners (they had at the moment, around 20 men) killed by knife, most of them in their sleep. He was horrified by the event like most of the Greek soldiers, he asked who did this of course it was the... Cretans (the most wild Greeks). The Cretan soldiers argued that they would not dragging along with them and feeding the coward "pasta-eaters" while them fighting against their sneaky short and lacking even the basic of supplies... quite true too that the situation was not easy... and true that in some other detachments they had done similarly
... and that had as a side effect that this was somehow learnt in Italian ranks that "Greeks now kill POWs", so Italians started fighting more and surrendering less making the job somehow more difficult.
Hence there always a double edge in the knife... who knows, that must have costed the life to a number of Greeks soldiers...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.