"No prisoners" orders and Waffen SS, WW2

[CruddyLeper]

Hi, looking for any help if anyone has it - more looking for websites and resources for WW2 standing orders for the US and UK armed forces.

Here's what I got so far;-

1) John Colby’s "War from the Ground Up".

2) German veterans tell loud and clear: "For us in the Falaise Gap it was impossible to become the POWs for both the US and Polish troops. They executed us at once" (quotation from Canadian historian Dr Reginald H. Roy’s materials).

3) The Biscairi massacre, detailed on wikipedia. Essentially the defendant's got off because Patton had said, in a 1942 pep talk;-

"When we land against the enemy, don't forget to hit him and hit him hard. When we meet the enemy we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender – oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. Stick him in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion he will fight less. We must build up that name as killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_Massacre

4) The US 328th Reg of the 26th Infantry Division had written orders stating that "No SS troops....will be taken but will be shot on sight". The CO seems to have done a vanishing trick 5 days after issuing them. Colonel Ben R. Jacobs.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=47259

5) The written testimony of Michael Alexander, in the book Hostages at Colditz.

Has anyone got any others? I'm guessing more books than web pages. Also possibly broadcasts from Roosevelt/Churchill.

Information on any punishments/court martials for such atrocities would also be most welcome... not trying to build a case, just trying to build a picture. Which isn't that easy 60 years after the event.

 

[Adler17]

I doubt that there were any trials. The Allies were very reluctant to make trials concerning their war criminals after the war.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

I've always personally agreed with my uncle's thoughts that if some sod machine guns three of your mates who you've been with for two years and then cheerfully sticks his hands up and surrenders when his ammuntion has gone then the chances are you won't be inclined to accept. Whilst you cannot condone such actions they are understandable and hard to try someone for.

On the other hand physically lining up soldiers sometime after the red mist of battle has passed and executing them should always be punished. And I don't think the argument that "my superior told me to" is a good enough defence.

 

[Case]

Hi, looking for any help if anyone has it - more looking for websites and resources for WW2 standing orders for the US and UK armed forces.

The standing orders were to treat prisoners humanely and in full accordance with the relevant laws of warfare. It was illegal to order that prisoners be not taken or be mistreated. There were, of course, many occasions where prisoners were misstreated by Allied servicemen, but such maltreatment was against the orders issued to the troops and the western Allies had a good reputation for treating prisoners well.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Case, what's your source?

Where can I actually see a resource listing the orders given? Where are the transcripts of broadcasts by the Western Allied leaders?

privatehudson, yes I know. I'm not looking for individual actions, (there's any number of them), I'm looking for testimony that orders were given not to take prisoners. Different kettle of fish.

Adler17, there were a couple of recorded instances, but you are quite right, no Allied soldiers executed for war crimes against Axis armed forces.

Thank you for the replies, others are welcome.

 

[Case]

Where can I actually see a resource listing the orders given?

Try looking for the relevant field and training manuals issued by the Allied armed forces during WW2. These documents will detail the doctrine governing how POWs had to be treated. For instance, the US Army set down how POWs had to be handled in FM 27-10 Basic Field Manual: Rules of Land Warfare (1940). I can't find a copy of the 1940 edition for free on the internet (though several sites are selling it on CD), though a copy dating from 1956 is available at: http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

Where are the transcripts of broadcasts by the Western Allied leaders?

I very much doubt that the Allied leaders made broadcasts instructing their military personnel to treat prisoners well. That was a topic which was handled during military training and should have formed a component of the training provided to each and every Allied serviceman.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do you have to accept prisoners surrendering though? I'm not going to judge any soldier regardless of nationality gunning down soldiers who have surrendered after a hard fight and they've kiled several of their friends. Bit different if the prisoners have been captured or if its a negotiated surrender.

 

[Case]

Do you have to accept prisoners surrendering though?

Yes you do have to accept genuine offers of surrender. As a result, it is not legal to kill prisoners 'in the heat of battle'. However, this is hard to enforce and can fly in the face of human emotions.

The incidence of surrendering soldiers being killed shouldn't be overstated though - it seems to have been much more common for battlefield surrenders to be accepted. It was also almost unheard of for soldiers who surrendered as part of mass capitulations on the Western Fronts of WW2 to be maltreated (in contrast to the mutual barbarity on the Eastern Front).

 

[CruddyLeper]

5) The written testimony of Michael Alexander, in the book Hostages at Colditz.

It was co-authored with Giles Romily, and that's the one that really set me thinking... I mean, if you've got to shoot a soldier on your own side just to get a uniform that the enemy won't think of as "auto-execute-criminal"...

... also rather suspicious that you can't actually get transcripts of wartime broadcasts.

Absence of evidence... oh, suggest you look up what happened to captured Wehrmachet prisoners when they were "reclassified" as military labour - their rations were cut by 2/3rds and thousands of them starved to death.

Nice eh? You won't see that on the History Channel.

So, no resources. Ah well, thanks for giving me what you had.

 

[s.c.dude]

watch the d-day part of saving private ryan

 

[CruddyLeper]

No, that's not what I mean - not individual cases, more systematic abuse. Quite a few Allied veterans claim they were verbally ordered not to take SS prisoner. Not what I'm looking for.

I did turn up the following from the Churchill papers (nice online resource);

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=13974;sort_by=Dscore;index=118

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=13974;sort_by=Dscore;index=99

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=13974;sort_by=Dscore;index=102

Oddly enough, 2 out of 3 seem to be closed to public access. Which suggests other public records are locked up still.

More strange - if you google "Cunningham Agreement" + Roosevelt, you get ONLY that page.

Anyone know what the Cunningham Agreement was/is?

 

[Case]

... also rather suspicious that you can't actually get transcripts of wartime broadcasts.

Which wartime broadcasts? Have you tried Google? Churchill published all of his wartime speeches at the end of the war (side steeping several government regulations in the process as some were from secret closed sessions of Parliament) so you might be able to pick them up in your local library. Again, I don't think that the Allied supreme leadership thought that it needed to waste its time lecturing soldiers on topics which formed part of the standard training provided.

The whole concept of someone like Churchill or FDR going on the radio to anounce the military's policies towards POWs is ridiculous - as the western Allies had ratified the Geneva Conventions these conventions formed the law of the land and there was no need for this to be stated once the war broke out. The procedures the military needed to follow to meet these obligations were set out in the relevant manuals and included in training.

Absence of evidence... oh, suggest you look up what happened to captured Wehrmachet prisoners when they were "reclassified" as military labour - their rations were cut by 2/3rds and thousands of them starved to death.

Oh, so you are pushing an ideological barrow. Let me guess: the Allies were murderous brutes, the poor Germans were treatly poorly and there's been a massive cover-up to hide this fact which has lasted for 60 years. Sure.

So, no resources.

Please re-read my post: the relevant field manuals are available for purchase via the internet but aren't available for free (that I could find in 5 minutes). If you're interested in this topic I saw the US Army manual for about $US 10 on one site. If you bother using Google several sites are selling it in electronic and hardcopy formats. Why don't you buy it?

Quite a few Allied veterans claim they were verbally ordered not to take SS prisoner

Yes, that's correct. These illegal orders were issued in response to attrocities commited by the Waffen SS against Allied POWs (such as the massacre of Canadian POWs on D-Day in Normandy and the massacre of US POWs during the Battle of the Bulge). Despite this the Allies accepted the surrender of many thousands of SS men during the war.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Which wartime broadcasts? Have you tried Google? Churchill published all of his wartime speeches at the end of the war (side steeping several government regulations in the process as some were from secret closed sessions of Parliament) so you might be able to pick them up in your local library.

Have you tried reading my posts or the links? Access is marked Open on 1, and there's no entry on the 2 others.

Oh, so you are pushing an ideological barrow. Let me guess: the Allies were murderous brutes, the poor Germans were treatly poorly and there's been a massive cover-up to hide this fact which has lasted for 60 years. Sure.

All wrong except the last point - and not cover up, just keeping it classified. Glad you agree with me... considering that the Fort Hunt cover up hit the streets about a week ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900856.html?nav=rss_world

relevant passage;

The prisoners stayed at Fort Hunt for as little as two or three weeks and as long as nine months. They were held incommunicado; when they had told everything they knew, they were transferred to regular POW camps elsewhere in the United States, and the Red Cross was then notified of their capture.

Technical breach right there. They're hardly going to release details of a more serious breach, ie "shoot on sight" orders, until all the veterans are safely buried.

Quite right too. I don't think it's fair that a bunch of high strung emotional fan boys should terrorise old people for events that happened over 60 years ago.

Please re-read my post: the relevant field manuals are available for purchase via the internet but aren't available for free (that I could find in 5 minutes). If you're interested in this topic I saw the US Army manual for about $US 10 on one site. If you bother using Google several sites are selling it in electronic and hardcopy formats. Why don't you buy it?

No point until I get hard evidence that was happened on the ground was in contravention of those training manuals...

Yes, that's correct. These illegal orders were issued in response to attrocities commited by the Waffen SS against Allied POWs (such as the massacre of Canadian POWs on D-Day in Normandy and the massacre of US POWs during the Battle of the Bulge). Despite this the Allies accepted the surrender of many thousands of SS men during the war.

Well, post some examples then....

... on 2nd thoughts, just one example, preferably of someone that's already dead, eh?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, that's correct. These illegal orders were issued in response to attrocities commited by the Waffen SS against Allied POWs (such as the massacre of Canadian POWs on D-Day in Normandy

I dont think orders had to be issued after what happened. every candaian knew what had happened from word of mouth and they understood whom they would be fighting. The battles which followed in Caen was extremely vicous and both sides understood taking of POWs was out and thus they fought to the death.

 

[CruddyLeper]

The whole concept of someone like Churchill or FDR going on the radio to anounce the military's policies towards POWs is ridiculous - as the western Allies had ratified the Geneva Conventions these conventions formed the law of the land and there was no need for this to be stated once the war broke out.

"By rushing out from his fixed defences the enemy may give us the chace to turn his great gameble into his worst defeat. So I call upon every man, of all the Allies, to rise now to new heights of resolution and of effort. Let everyone hold before him a single thought - to destroy the enemy on the ground, in the air, everywhere - destroy him! United in this determination and with unshakeable faith in the cause for which we fight, we will, with God's help, go forware to our greatest victory."

Eisenhower, order of the day, 22nd December 1944 (5 days after Malmedy Massacre)

"As a peroration the General said that he had heard what Mr Churchill had said about the S.S troops and how they would all be shot at the end of the war. 'Your Mr Churchill says we are all assassins', he said, pointing towards the soldiers on the floor, who did not seem to be taking much interest in his declamation. He called one of them up, a good-looking youth of about eighteen, and patted him on the shoulder. 'This is Karl', he said, 'does Karl look like an assassin?' Karl certainly looked more like an eager boy scout.

Michael Alexander, quoting SS General Berger, Hostages at Colditz

So, can anyone find the google that lists Churchill condemning all SS as assassins? Because I can't find it.

I'm damn sure he said it, I've asked enough octogenarians what they thought of the SS and "assassins" is the first word out of their mouths, 9 times out of 10.

You CAN get the complete Lord Haw-Haw speeches, but you cannot buy the complete Churchill speeches. "Specially selected from the BBC archives."

Looks like Berger wasn't the only one who liked to whitewash.

 

[BaneBlade]

From what has been told me(y Grandpa and other people of his age) it is true that many
germans died in prison camps immediatly after the capitulation(starvation&diseases), but they had the perception that this was due to logistical problems and shortages and no ill-will.
Only "planned crimes" in this period i know of was the use of prisoners as forced labor, mainly by the french. The americans "gifted" them 10s or 100s of thousands of their prisoners to support htem in this, a practice similarly outlawed.

 

[Adler17]

2 of my granduncles were held as PoW in a Belgian camp. They said, it was awful. The guard even machinegunned into the camp just for fun. One of them was later transferred to England, where it was much better.

Adler

 

[nonconformist]

Cruddy;

Citizen Soldier by Stephen Ambrose outlines Polish unit that is in charge of escorting German prisoners to American troops.
He arrives with a few dozen prisoners, at which the American officer is dumbstruck, and says "we were expecting two hundred"
The Polish officer answers "they shot my countrymen, so we shot them".
He then takes the American aside and says "this is embarassing, but we ran out of ammo".

There is also the American massacre of Concentration Camp guards at Dachau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre

(The photo there, of the guards with their hands up I would take with a large pinch of salt. While it is shown as a photo of the massacre, I don't think it is, as I hgave seen it labelled otherwise, in Ambrose's book, as well as it looking rather more like his description than that of a massacre. Ambrose's description was that at a concentration camp, all of the SS guards were lined up against a wall, with their had=nds up. One of them made a break for it, encountering a hail of bullets from the Americans. All of the SS, bar the three shown standing, then proceeded to fall over, and play dead.
Due to the lack of blood, bulletholes, and the calm demeanor of the standing SS, as well as the fickle nature of Wikipedia, I would say that is the correct label for that photo).

Cheers.

 

[privatehudson]

Those who sow the wind...

Interesting to note that the Dachau incident was neither ordered by the commanding officer nor approved of by the American Army.

 

[nonconformist]

Those who sow the wind...

Interesting to note that the Dachau incident was neither ordered by the commanding officer nor approved of by the American Army.

Well, I'm not crying myself to sleep about it.