Collateral Damage? Nyet! Beneficial Extras!

[Kommander]

I don't think prisoners were shot, but after D-Day, and the Allied troops saw the machine-gunned paratroopers in the trees, you had to be a lot more emphatic if you wanted to surrender.

There are a few instance of enraged front line American solders shooting recently captured prisoners. However mass execution of prisoners was never a policy, official or otherwise.

[Vonz90]

I don't think prisoners were shot, but after D-Day, and the Allied troops saw the machine-gunned paratroopers in the trees, you had to be a lot more emphatic if you wanted to surrender.

There are a few instance of enraged front line American solders shooting recently captured prisoners. However mass execution of prisoners was never a policy, official or otherwise.

I did not say it was. However, I've also talked to a Marine who served in the Pacific who specifically told me that they did not take prisoners unless there was someone pretty senior around to say otherwise.

It was a nasty war and we were in it because of what the other side did and the national command decision makers on the other side made a decision to fight it how they did. You reap what you sow and all that.

I don't see any benefit to pretending that it did not happen.

[Kommander]

I was honestly thinking more of ETO than the Pacific when I wrote that. I would hope everyone here understands that the Japanese were not really interested in surrendering and ally soldiers were really not interested in taking prisoners.

[Jericho941]

First off, what exactly do you think area bombing was? Yes, that was a British term, but the only functional difference between most of their target lists and ours was we maintained a pretense of calling precision bombing even when the precision target we were bombing included medieval hamlets that were on the list because "they have a road running through it" - well screw it at that point you are just bombing civilians to do it. And there are discussions like this: http://www.8thairforce.com/44thbg/searc ... tion=21329

Look, I'm not saying we were wrong. Heck, I might have even done it myself if I was in the shoes of those doing it. But don't pretend it didn't happen.

(BTW, we also shot prisoners and other such things at times, it was what it was.)

It seems to me that the disagreement here is mostly semantic. A fairly blasé attitude towards collateral damage creates an environment ripe for abuse.

I don't think prisoners were shot, but after D-Day, and the Allied troops saw the machine-gunned paratroopers in the trees, you had to be a lot more emphatic if you wanted to surrender.

Apparently, Allied commanders recalling that they themselves had decided that they had little interest in prisoners was part of the reason Kurt Meyer's death sentence was commuted to life in prison.

I was honestly thinking more of ETO than the Pacific when I wrote that. I would hope everyone here understands that the Japanese were not really interested in surendering and ally soldiers were really not intresting in taking prisners.

The Japanese were known to fake surrenders and being wounded, making the act of taking prisoners a much more risky endeavor than usual. Given the scale of the bloodshed, especially in the island-hopping campaign, shooting anyone appearing to be wounded or attempting to surrender would likely be an act of mere self-preservation.

[HTRN]

(BTW, we also shot prisoners and other such things at times, it was what it was.)

We generally didn't up until Malmedy(which happened because Hitler ordered American prisoners shot, like on the eastern front, in order to intimidate them). After that, almost all German SS and Paratroops were shot on sight. It actually became a standing order with one unit. Eventually, High command had to issue an order to "please stop shooting prisoners, we can't get any intel out of dead ones".

[Baja boy]

The Japanese were known to fake surrenders and being wounded, making the act of taking prisoners a much more risky endeavor than usual. Given the scale of the bloodshed, especially in the island-hopping campaign, shooting anyone appearing to be wounded or attempting to surrender would likely be an act of mere self-preservation.

That's exactly what my Dad told me. He drove a bulldozer on Okinawa to bury the Japs in their caves and foxholes.

[slowpoke]

The Japanese were known to fake surrenders and being wounded, making the act of taking prisoners a much more risky endeavor than usual. Given the scale of the bloodshed, especially in the island-hopping campaign, shooting anyone appearing to be wounded or attempting to surrender would likely be an act of mere self-preservation.

That's exactly what my Dad told me. He drove a bulldozer on Okinawa to bury the Japs in their caves and foxholes.

My grandfather brought home no souvenirs, partly because he watched a guy get blown up from a booby traped dead Japanese soldier.

There was no quarter on the eastern front, nor in the pacific.

[Weetabix]

It was a nasty war and we were in it because of what the other side did and the national command decision makers on the other side made a decision to fight it how they did. You reap what you sow and all that.

We could use some of that now with the jihadis.

[Vonz90]

It was a nasty war and we were in it because of what the other side did and the national command decision makers on the other side made a decision to fight it how they did. You reap what you sow and all that.

We could use some of that now with the jihadis.

It would be completely legal to put them on a wall and shoot them because they are not lawful combatants.

[skb12172]

Instead, the Democrats would rather bring them over here, put them on welfare, and register them to vote.