Killing Prisoners

While the piece in the link below is specific to Canadians on the Western Front in WW1, I see some broader similarities with WW2 behaviour. Some of that I believe is basic human nature and intrinsic to being a combat infantryman. In the heat of battle and given certain circumstances, the killing of prisoners has never been all that surprising to me. To switch from killing to compassion cannot be an easy transition.
The cycle of reprisal and counter reprisal is very [SIZE=10.5pt]reminiscent of the Normandy battles between the Canadians and the 12th SS. No quarter asked or given. [/SIZE]What is particularly striking is that the WW1 vets seem to have been far more frank and open about these occurences than their WW2 counterparts. Perhaps the war crimes trials after WW2 made them more reluctant to implicate themselves.

In any event, the harsh reality of life in the trenches makes for some chilling reading.

http://web.viu.ca/davies/H482.WWI/TimCook.Cdns.KillingPrisoners.pdf

 

The killing of prisoners (or, more often, of those trying to surrender) is one of the uglier aspects of the British Imperial and Commonwealth armies in WWII. You speak of the Canadians, but at times indivduals in both of the divisions I studied--one British and one Australian--were guilty of the same thing. I wish I didn't have to report that, but these things did happen.

Most of the cases I found occurred, as you say, "in the heat of battle"--a partial explanation for the phenomenon, but not an excuse for it.The 50th Division fought next to the Canadians for much of the time in Normandy, and I regret to report that the atmosphere on 50th Div's front was not always better than it was on the Canadian. The 50th faced part of 12th SS east of Tilly sur Seulles, and some men of the DLI were among those killed along with the Canadian PW at the Chateau d'Audrieu. One officer of 5th East Yorks reported that when his men took a German bunker on D-Day they gave the Germans within no chance to surrender but mowed them down.

 

good day canuck.yesterday 08:57 pm.re:killing prisoners,this subject tends to become a blame game,(your link failed.just to let you know).it was not a thing anybody would own up to in our forces,but the german ss is well known for such atrocity.revenge by our troops is a thing they did not make public.i note von poop.admid.is reading the biscari killings?is it the killing of prisoners?an interesting post.thank you for posting regards bernard85

 

Killing prisoners is usually a symptom of poor leadership and/or poor discipline. Knowing that the enemy did it earlier may lead to nelsonian eyes but its still poor leadership. However, it is not always entirely clear when an enemy has changed from resistance to surrendering.

 

Years ago I worked for a gentleman (in every sense) I'll call Mr. "B" who was a NCO in a reconnaissance unit serving in France, 1944. At one point on patrol their squad came under fire from what he termed a "sniper" and after a bit of fire and maneuver they forced him out of cover and he surrendered, but only after killing one of the most well liked members of the squad. On the face of it just another fire fight, but one member of the squad described as the most inoffensive and timid lost his composure and preceded to beat the man with his rifle. No one stopped him. Takes alot to beat a man to death and to watch without stopping it.

According to Mr. "B" the soldier went back to his normal deportment, nothing was ever said about it again and it never happened again also.

Ask a man (or woman) to kill another on orders for long enough and given enough time and the right circumstance they will kill for reasons of their own. The thing is everyone has their own breaking point no matter how disciplined they may be.

 

Hmm didn't General Bradley ordered snipers to be killed in Normandy? And he is so far the only one so far promoted to five star general in peacetime.

 

For what it is worth, I thought I'd throw in a few words on the subject, writing as someone who experienced life at the very sharp end.

From the end of March '45 until the end of hostilities in Italy (on May 2nd) I had ample opportunities to witness the handling of German prisoners at the moment of their capture.

Without exception, German prisoners, once taken, were an encumbrance to be passed back down the line, unharmed, as soon as possible and in my unit, anyway, I was to see no exception to this rule.

It didn't matter that perhaps minutes before we were hell bent on killing as many of the enemy as possible, once the firing had stopped we seemed to switch off and curiosity took over.

Having said that, I can equally understand how an infantryman having seen his friends being killed moments earlier and then being confronted by the surrender of those responsible would not be able to "switch off"

Ron

ps
An example posted here: http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/19215-soldier-training/?p=228873

 

From my own experience it is sometime difficult to contain your anger at prisoners especially as you have just witnessed them gun down the infantry which you are

supporting, I recall one day when we lost 90 Seaforth Highlanders of Canada in a very nasty battle against the German 1st Para div's 4th Regiment - suddenly a Canadian
Infantryman passed us escorting half a dozen paras… he disappeared and shortly reappeared alone in too quick a time to have handed them over to his company's HQ…

Neither we nor anyone else said a word…but just get on with the Battle…

Cheers

 

*
I'm not sure I have a firm opinion on 'in the heat of battle' killings. On one hand, sat here in my armchair I feel it is wrong and then I consider assaulting Gold Beach, the blood is up, my mates getting killed and wounded by a steady steam of artillery, mortar and rapid MG fire and the enemy doing this hiding in concrete bunkers... think I'd want to stop them first (however it was achieved) and ask questions later.

I don't see this as the same as what happened at the Chateau d'Audrieu, where the 12th SS Panzer Division in cold blood executed men who had already been taken PoW.

From 'Three Assualt Landings - The Story of the 1st Bn The Dorsteshire Regiment in Sicily, Italy and NW Europe' by Lt-Col AEC Bredin DSO, MC. The 1st Bn Dorsetshire Regiment, 231st Infantry Brigade, 50th (Northumbrian) Division, were acting as motorised infantry in support of the 8th Armoured Brigade, which were operating in advance of the main bridgehead. This is early on the 9 June 1944.

Lt-Col AEC Bredin was obviously then unaware that two men from the 6th Bn Durham Light Infantry, 151st Infantry Brigade, also 50th (Northumbrian) Division, were amongst the men he saw in those rows.

Best,

Steve.

 

Well in October '45 the British/Indian Army in Sourabaya had no problems executing prisoners according to their WD.

 

I strongly believe the Germans that killed, no murdered British PoWs in France during 1940 are bastards, plan and simple. I think no differently of any Allied soldiers doing the same to German PoWs during WW2. For me to think it was ok for one side to do it and not the other just isn't logical.

 

There is the other side of the coin. The tale that always makes me think is the one of the 11 Hussars sergeant in Normandy who was captured 'in cold blood' having crawled through a hedge into a field full of Germans. Spared, as you'd hope, he and an 11 H trooper was sent to the rear under a two-man escort. Once away from the crowd, the sergeant overpowered one guard and took the other one prisoner and brought him back to our lines. He later received an MM for the exploit.

Obviously a brave chap and 'nails', and all's fair in love and war etc., but if you officially condone an act which might make the Germans think twice about taking prisoners - granting parole, as it were - you can't really complain when they don't.

 

I do not condone PoW's being shot dead by a patrol, PoW's being shot during a lull in fighting, PoW's 'disappearing', PoW's being shot in front of witnesses, PoW's being made to dig their own graves, or PoW's being put up against a wall and shot. These are all cold blooded killings - it is murder.

However, I can understand that a soldier who is in the thick of a battle, has seen a lot of his mates killed or wounded, blood up, angry as hell, kicking in a door of a house occupied by enemy soldiers, throwing in a hand-grenade, and after the blast, entering the house and blazing away with his Sten Gun; even when realising in the moment he pulls the trigger the enemy soldiers still alive have started putting their hands up. Result enemy soldiers are killed between the time of the soldier sees the enemy surrendering and his brain telling him to release the trigger. That is a 'heat of the moment' killing, it is not cold blooded, it is not meant, but it happens. No moral issue for me with this scenario.

Agree it works the same for both sides.

 

I never spent over much time wondering about being taken prisoner, even when I found myself transferred to a unit that offered a much greater risk of this happening to me (see my signature below)

The transfer to tanks however gave me the opportunity of asking a German POW the nagging question of what would have happened to me if I had fallen into the bag.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/13/a2039113.shtml

Ron

 

Good post.

The other dynamic at work throughout these instances were violations of the "code" which were likely to get you killed. There was certainly an unwritten set of rules which governed how you might be treated upon surrender, by either side. As was noted in the article, being a sniper or flame thrower operator didn't bode well for a successful outcome. Neither did the possession of saw tooth bayonets, dum dum bullets, battle souvenirs or any form of treachery which preceded the surrender. The Germans, in both wars, seemed to have a proclivity for feigned surrender, followed by a resumption of hostilities. Many Canadian accounts describe this scenario and particularly where casualties resulted, not much mercy was shown afterwards.
The prisoner shootings which resulted from these occurrences were less motivated by emotion and more a case of administering the known penalty for breaking the understood rules of the game.

In some respects it resembled the code of sports teams. Rough play, be it rugby, football or hockey, was fine but biting or spitting made you fair game.