POW murder in -band of brothers-
Bill F
apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
nobody mentioned by name that were put into the show.
The way it was show came across as particuarly ugly in that the soldiers
involved at least seemed to be green troops who could not use being
hardened by war as any sort of excuse. I tried to find the episode name,
but the episode guides I looked at dont even mention it.
--
JDupre5762
>apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
>was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
>account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
>nobody mentioned by name that
>were put into the show.
The incident comes in the episode after they drop on Normandy and occurs the
next day as the various small groups begin to gather finally near their initial
objective. It is important to note that you never see the POWs actually being
shot. The burst of Thompson SMG fire occurs off screen and is committed by a
2nd Lt. Platoon leasder who later commands Easy Company. In several later
episodes you see various members of the company talking about this Lt. and his
exploits in which the number of dead POWs increases exponentially with a few
laggard and cowardly GIs thrown in for good measure. In a still later scene
the Lt. is asked about these stories and basically explains that in order to
gain instant respect from his men he did certain things to gain their attention
and never dispelled or explained his actions further.
The sense I got is that the Lt. carefully chose his moment to fire his SMG
while alone with the prisoners but within earshot of men of Easy Company giving
the impression that he had murdered the POWs and thus gaining an instant
reputation as a bad ass. This same character is identified later as one of the
few members of the company to remain in the Army later commanding the prison at
Spandau.
John Dupre'
--
dan2
followed him in WW2. Its mentioned in a few episodes but you only see how
the men imagined it. Speers has never tried or diciplined and he never
talked about the rummor, so nobody knows if it actually happened.
"Bill F" <frs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:buhdit$j14$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> I saw HBO's -band of brothers- recently and was rather surprised by the
> apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
> was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
> account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
> nobody mentioned by name that were put into the show.
--
Seawolf
> apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
> was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
> account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
> nobody mentioned by name that were put into the show.
Was that the episode where the "German" soldier says he's from Astoria,
Oregon? I think that what they were showing was the stress and horror of
war, and what it does to otherwise "decent" human beings. I do not know if
it was based on an actual event. I read the book (excellent, much better
than the mini-series) and I don't recall this incident being told. Perhaps
it was just a little "Hollywood" liscense).
Brent
--
Martin Rapier
> apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
> was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
Well, it was a real story, taken from the book.
> account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
> nobody mentioned by name that were put into the show.
Lt Reginald Spears, who took over Easy Company during the attack on Foy in
the Battle of the Bulge. He stayed in the Army after the war and rose to the
rank of Lt Colonel. He was clearly identified in the TV series.
> The way it was show came across as particuarly ugly in that the soldiers
> involved at least seemed to be green troops who could not use being
> hardened by war as any sort of excuse. I tried to find the episode name,
> but the episode guides I looked at dont even mention it.
The shooting was in Episode 2, 'Day of Days'. The interestingly garbled
reconstruction in which the original Heer troops are transformed into
captured Waffen SS was during one of the Bulge episodes, as was Spears
refusal to confirm nor deny that he'd actually done it, preferring instead
the reputation of being a mean SOB.
Cheers
Martin
--
Steven James Forsberg
: apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
: was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
: account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
: nobody mentioned by name that were put into the show.
Things like that certainly happened, however, I do not believe t
that in the book the series is based on (by Stephen Ambrose) that the
perpetrators are named. In most such incidents by allied soldiers, no one
was ever charged. Another example would be in the book "Battle" (about
the Battle of the Bulge) by John Toland. In it he describes a US officer
shooting German prisoners in the back of the head. Toland certainly knew
who he was -- but did not put his name in the book.
These crimes/alleged crimes are a touchy subject for US historians.
Basically, no one likes to name names. In addition, there is about zero
interest in prosecuting US soldiers for actions in a war that is over.
That is just the way it is.
regards,
------------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Andrew Clark
"Bill F" <frs...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I saw HBO's -band of brothers- recently and was
> rather surprised by the apparent murder of
> POWs in one episode with no real comment.
The murder of surrendered enemy soldiers on the battlefield
was common among all Allied troops in all theatres. The
murder of surrendered enemy troops off the battlefield was
very rare indeed.
Cub Driver
I think it was in episode three, or for sure on the second DVD. (There
are two episodes on each disk.)
In a later episode, there is a lot of talk about a lieutenant who may
or may not have killed prisoners. I don't believe the shootings are
the same; I remember the first offender as an enlisted man who first
handed out cigarettes to the men he was about to execute.
You have to remember that Band of Brothers was based on interviews
nearly fifty years after the fact. I have not read the book, but I
don't doubt from reading his other books that Stephen Ambrose took the
most eye-popping stuff and featured it; then Hanks and Spielberg
selected from that material the incidents to film. Little effort was
made to tidy up afterward, or to relate one incident to another. This
is a weakness in an otherwise superlative bit of movie-making.
I don't doubt that prisoners were shot. I would be skeptical that it
happened in just the way it was portrayed on the series. As shown,
there just wasn't any reason to shoot the Germans. If it happened, it
more likely happened in hot blood, and in a much more messy fashion.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: cubd...@operamail.com
see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
Steven James Forsberg
: The incident comes in the episode after they drop on Normandy and occurs the
: next day as the various small groups begin to gather finally near their initial
: objective. It is important to note that you never see the POWs actually being
: shot. The burst of Thompson SMG fire occurs off screen and is committed by a
There is in a later episode a scene where a soldier shoots down a
German whom he thinks was a camp guard. It has been reported that several/
many US soldiers executed people they thought had been camp guards or SS
officials. As it turned out, however, most of the "real" camp guards fled
as the Americans came close, and the guards on hand when the Americans
showed up were often just rear-area types who had been put in place to allow
the 'harcore' culprits to flee. US soldiers, most of whom did not speak
German let alone really understand the rank/billet system of Germany, sometimes
did not really know who they were killing.
regards,
-------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Keval
> I saw exactly the episode you're speaking about.That one particular
> incident may or may not have happened; This was, after all, a
> docu-drama; not a documentary. There were, however, many incidents of
> outright abuse and murder of German POW's both during and after the
> war. These were committed by both Soviet and western Allie
> troops.These atrocities were, of course, excused by either outright
> denial of them occurring at all or; excused in that either these were
> just excesses of war, or even the more popular "They had it coming"
> Regardless of which excuse is given, the same acts committed by German
> troops were considered war crimes and the perpetrators severely
> punished.
Hello out there, is there anybody home?
This is a depection of what war does to people.
Maybe this particular instance happened maybe it didn't in real life.
But the point is that these types of things happen on all sides in all
wars.
WW2 was especially vicious in this regard.
In battle there are no goodies and there are no badies. There is just
maiming and killing.
So all you war junkies out there who think that there is something
noble and heroic in it, maybe you need to reassess. The most decent
and loving of people become hateful beasts.
This is why so many of our fathers (once again on all sides) have
suffered the rest of their lives. They saw and in some cases did
things and at other times had things done to them and their comrades
that go so much against the grain of their decency as human beings.
It is men at there most base, killing each other..... remember the
fifth commandment.......
--
Cub Driver
>Regardless of which excuse is given, the same acts committed by German
>troops were considered war crimes and the perpetrators severely
>punished.
And rightly so! Surely you are not suggesting that German soldiers'
crimes in an aggressive war are to be condoned because of the actions
of the soldiers who defeated them? The Germans did indeed have it
coming to them in 1945. If they had stayed home in 1939, 55 million
people would have lived out their normal span. No crime in the history
of man compares to what Germany did from 1939 to 1945.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: cubd...@operamail.com
see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
--
Colin McGARRY
The paratroopers had orders to take no prisoners. To take prisoners
one needs a base to take them to and enough men to guard them.
On Omahah beach there were few prisoners taken. The germans that
suvived Omaha, retreated or surrendered late in the day when the heat
of the battle had calmed.
C McGarry
Colin
cmcgarry (at) cpmac . com
www.cpmac.com
--
Duwop
> troops were considered war crimes and the perpetrators severely
> punished.
Please name 4 instances for which german troops were indicted. And,
what their punishment was. You can't, can you? Du drecksau.
This type of shooting prisoners happened often enough throughout the
war mostly depending on how hard up the capturing troops were. For
example, when reading histories of North African battles and see
"hard" or esp. "bitterly" fought you can be sure that few prisoners
were taken, by either side.
D
JDupre5762
>maiming and killing.
>So all you war junkies out there who think that there is something
>noble and heroic in it, maybe you need to reassess. The most decent
>and loving of people become hateful beasts.
Simplistic tripe. Anyone who has ever read or heard or seen a medic working
heroically to save the life of an enemy just shot by his own troops knows how
stupid the above statement is. Of course combat desensitizes its participants
to killing but few of them actually go on to murder. Most combatants can
hardly wait for the killing to stop so that they can resume their normal lives.
John Dupre'
--
Velovich03
>wars.
As a natural result of the fog of war, yes, you are right.
>In battle there are no goodies and there are no badies. There is just
>maiming and killing.
>So all you war junkies out there who think that there is something
>noble and heroic in it, maybe you need to reassess.
Are you saying there is nothing noble or heroic about putting an end to what
the Japanese and NAZIs were doing to innocent people?
Do you really want to cheapen the war nd those that suffered to end it so
much?
--
Cub Driver
<sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>Things like that certainly happened, however, I do not believe t
>that in the book the series is based on (by Stephen Ambrose)
The officer is named in the Band of Brothers video. At the end of
episode ten, "Points", there is a little epilog where the Winters
character relates what happened postwar to some of the "brothers".
Included is a word on the career of the lieutenant who may or may not
have executed the PWs at Normandy. He stayed in the army postwar and
retired as a lieutenant colonel.
Let me put in a word about BOB: I just finished watching it last
night, and in my judgment it is the finest film (if it is a film)
about combat that I have ever seen. All the more surprising that it
came from the men (Spielberg and Hanks) responsible for Saving Private
Ryan, which so irritated me with its continuing errors that I walked
out before it ended.
Richard L Hamer
Cub Driver wrote:
>
>
> people would have lived out their normal span. No crime in the history
> of man compares to what Germany did from 1939 to 1945.
>
Oh? Not even the crimes committed by Japanese forces from 1933 to
1945? In what way there the crimes of Germany worst than the crimes
of Japan? The only difference between the crimes of the two was the
race of the victims plus the number of victims were higher for the
Japanese and the punishment less.
David Tyrrell
"Cub Driver" <cubd...@operamail.com> wrote
< snipped >
> No crime in the history of man compares to what Germany did from 1939 to
1945.
< snipped >
I disagree. Uncle Joe butchered more people and they were from his own
empire than Hitler and his henchmen. Also I understand that good old
Chairman Mao may even have outdone Uncle Joe.
The Japanese forces did not lack their own share of despicable characters,
including from before WWII. And all manner of feeble excuses have been
trotted out since.
That is not to say that justice wasn't on its way when Germany was defeated.
What the German people can claim is that they have apologised for their
national deeds of inhumanity, whereas the others don't admit to anything.
cf the Japanese high school history lessons
--
Keval
>Are you saying there is nothing noble or heroic about putting an end to what
>the Japanese and NAZIs were doing to innocent people?
> Do you really want to cheapen the war nd those that suffered to end it so
>much?
that is emotional claptrap that is missing the point. The fact is in
battle by it very nature mans beast emerges. Yes some heroic things
happen as well, just as individuals sink to depths of depravity on
both sides.
--
Andrew Clark
"David Tyrrell" <d_ty...@westnet.com.au> wrote
> I disagree. Uncle Joe butchered more people and
> they were from his own empire than Hitler and
> his henchmen.
Total loss of life arising from WW2, started by Hitler, was
around 40 million people, including 5.6 million Jews. Losses
arising during Stalin's period of rule from
collectivisation, execution, dying in the gulags or dying of
deliberate famine were around 15 million people. Hitler is
clearly the bigger butcher by far.
--
Velovich03
>> No crime in the history of man compares to what Germany did from 1939 to
>1945.
>
>< snipped >
>
>I disagree. Uncle Joe butchered more people and they were from his own
>empire than Hitler
Did Stalin turning it into an assembly line process? No. He gave orders
and left the people in charge to see it was done however they pleased. Yes, it
was terrible, but it's not the numbers, but the means, to me.
--
Bill F
news:<bumal2$d3m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> already...@hotmail.com (Ernest Kind) wrote in message news:<4012b00...@news.pacific.net.au>...
> > I saw exactly the episode you're speaking about.That one particular
> > incident may or may not have happened; This was, after all, a
> > docu-drama; not a documentary. There were, however, many incidents of
> > outright abuse and murder of German POW's both during and after the
> > war. These were committed by both Soviet and western Allie
> > troops.These atrocities were, of course, excused by either outright
> > denial of them occurring at all or; excused in that either these were
> > just excesses of war, or even the more popular "They had it coming"
> > Regardless of which excuse is given, the same acts committed by German
> > troops were considered war crimes and the perpetrators severely
> > punished.
>
> Hello out there, is there anybody home?
>
> This is a depection of what war does to people.
> Maybe this particular instance happened maybe it didn't in real life.
> But the point is that these types of things happen on all sides in all
> wars.
The act, as portrayed in band of brothers, isn't justifiable on those
grounds. That action, as played out in the film, is just murder and
murder by troops with very little time in battle who can't claim combat
fatigue or dehumanization by war. There is a difference between something
happening in the heat of emotion/in troops that have been in combat
for a long time and going up to a bunch of surrendered men at a roadside
and shooting them.
If it had been in a later episode, say during the "buldge" or when
they were in those foxholes in front of that village, it would have
been understandable.
> WW2 was especially vicious in this regard.
> In battle there are no goodies and there are no badies. There is just
> maiming and killing.
One of the points was that, as portrayed, the incident had nothing
to do with battle. Shooting a bunch of disarmed prisoners who
fought in a battle the shooter took no part in is just not defensable
as something that happens in war.
> So all you war junkies out there who think that there is something
> noble and heroic in it, maybe you need to reassess. The most decent
> and loving of people become hateful beasts.
And total cowards when given a gun or a little bit of power over others
are capable of stupidity, brutality and war crimes no matter whose
uniform they wear.
> This is why so many of our fathers (once again on all sides) have
> suffered the rest of their lives. They saw and in some cases did
> things and at other times had things done to them and their comrades
> that go so much against the grain of their decency as human beings.
> It is men at there most base, killing each other..... remember the
> fifth commandment.......
With the events as portrayed on the video, that conclusion doesn't
apply. It applies in lots of other situations, but not that one.
Maybe I didn't understand all of what was going on watching it, but
its difficult to see the terrible experience the shooter went through
up to that point that led him to execute prisoners.
And to be clear, my problem isn't with the people who fought in the
war over this, its with those who made the program. The ambiguity
later in the program about what the other man did is ok with me. But
the way the program does the earlier incident is just unacceptable to
me because its openly showing an act rather than being ambigious about
the act or the circumstances.
Bill F
news:<bumalv$d44$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> The paratroopers had orders to take no prisoners. To take prisoners
> one needs a base to take them to and enough men to guard them.
> On Omahah beach there were few prisoners taken. The germans that
> suvived Omaha, retreated or surrendered late in the day when the heat
> of the battle had calmed.
>
> C McGarry
If such an order exists, it would be a criminal order and those who
made the order and carried it out would be war criminals. There is
also a big difference between not taking prisoners and killing
disarmed soldiers who surrendered.
I dont believe that there was any such order. Band of Brothers
suggested that this killing was the act of one person acting on
their own.
Steven James Forsberg
: already...@hotmail.com (Ernest Kind) wrote in message
:> troops were considered war crimes and the perpetrators severely
:> punished.
: Please name 4 instances for which german troops were indicted. And,
: what their punishment was. You can't, can you? Du drecksau.
Well, let's start with Valentin Bessin, Friedal Bode, Kurt
Briesemeister, Friedrich Christ. The were among the 73 who were accused and
convicted for the Malmedy and related massacres. Generals Sep Dietrich and
was sentenced to hang along with Lt. Col. Peiper. Generals Frit Kramer
and Herman Pries got prison sentences (Pries' life sentence was commuted
to twenty years).
Nuremberg was just the "major" war criminal trails. Many other
"tribunals" were held. As a matter of fact, the blatant wrongdoing of the
prosecution during the Dachau tribunal (which tried the Malmedy defendants)
became a controversy. As an interesting side-note, the famous anti-communist
McCarthy got his first taste of fame attacking US army prosecutors for their
'nazi like' investigations and trial.
I should also point out that one of the legal arguments over the
Malmedy defendants was their status as "prisoners of war". The US argued
that they were NOT accorded POW status, and that beatings and solitary
confinement and mock trials, etc. were all permissible. Because this
position became so controversial, many sentences were commuted, and many
later tribunals refused such practices.
regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Justin Wigg
news:<401244c...@news.pacific.net.au>...
> I think it was in episode three, or for sure on the second DVD. (There
> are two episodes on each disk.)
Episode 2 - "Day of Days".
> In a later episode, there is a lot of talk about a lieutenant who may
> or may not have killed prisoners. I don't believe the shootings are
> the same; I remember the first offender as an enlisted man who first
> handed out cigarettes to the men he was about to execute.
The various discussions of the incident by the men of Easy Company
throughout the series seem to get more and more exaggerated as the
series goes on. The incident seems to evolve from the six or so
Volksdeutsche soldiers shown during the "I'm from Oregon too"
conversation in episode two, to thirty or more Waffen-SS (IIRC)
soldiers mowed down toward the end of the series. (There is one
instance however where one private claims that it was not Lt. Spiers
that did the actual shooting.)
There was another accusation levelled at Spiers at one point in the
series of him shooting a drunk NCO who refused an order. To the best
of my knowledge, Lt. (later Lt Col.) Spiers never denied committing
the actions in question, nor did he confirm the stories.
There is another scene in Band of Brothers showing French soldiers
executing German POWs found hiding in a farmhouse. Reprisal killings
in the heat of the moment were not uncommon on any side of the
conflict.
--
SQL> select * from users | Justin Wigg - Perth, AUSTRALIA
where clue > 0; | http://www.dws.com.au
no rows selected | Reply: jw...@dws.com.au
P S
>I saw HBO's -band of brothers- recently
>and was rather surprised by the apparent
>murder of POWs in one episode with no
>real comment. If this was a real incident,
>was the person involved ever charged,
>held to account or even identified. Or was
>this just rumors/stories with nobody
>mentioned by name that were put into the
>show.
Murder is the wrong word.
Retribution is a better one and is allowed by the code of battle.
Retribution is present in all wars. After the Waffen SS killed American
prisoners at the Battle of the Bulge Americans killed many Germans as
retribution.
Surrender is allowed to avoid undue violence but breaks down when
bloodshed occurs.
Once fighting begins it is difficult to surrender. If the enemy has
recently killed your friends and then tries to surrender he is most
likely facing death.
Soldiers generally accept surrender as necessary to survive. Each side
must take prisoners. Its is a reciprocal act.. I served in the Pacific
during WW 2 and observed Japanese in a hopeless situation that did not
surrender. That made the Pacific war somewhat different than in Europe
Phil.
Blitzko
infantry regiment, I came across a patrol report that detailed the incident
where my late father was wounded. On this night patrol in Caen, which was
led by a corporal along with six other ranks, including my father, they came
across a German soldier who was asleep in his slit trench (likely from
exhaustion). He was disarmed and woken. However, he attempted to run away
and was shot by the corporal leading the patrol. The corporal checked the
pulse of the German and found out that he was not dead, so he ordered two of
his men to pick up the wounded German and carry him back to the Canadian
lines. At this point, German machine guns opened fire on the patrol - one
man was killed, my father was wounded and a third went missing (but later
turned up OK). When the firing stopped, the corporal then said the following
in his report: "My patrol, by this time, was very jittery so I ordered them
back to our our lines. Before leaving, I shot the German through the head -
and made sure that he was dead."
Now, this was a wounded enemy combatant, who had been taken prisoner, then
was wounded while trying to escape. Was the corporal justified in killing
him, even though he posed no threat at that point? In fact, the corporal was
risking his patrol to more hostile fire by firing his gun, since that is
likely what alerted the Germans to their position in the first place (when
he fired twice at the fleeing German). Unfortunately, I never had the chance
to ask my father his opinion - he was there after all and certainly could
have shed more light on the whole incident. Perhaps the wounded German would
have died in any case. Was this murder or a justifiable and unavoidable
death? I don't think we who are the children of those who fought can really
answer those questions. I wonder sometimes what I would have done if I were
in that corporals' position.
"David Tyrrell" <d_ty...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:buouq0$l8a$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
--
Cub Driver
> In what way there the crimes of Germany worst than the crimes
>of Japan?
Sheer quantity, and the fact that the German treatment of Jews (6
million by the conventional reckoning) and other minorities (5
million) were planned and documented, and not the work of rogue
colonels, as was so often the case in the Japanese military.
The war in the Pacific was really small potatoes compared to that in
Europe and its environs. 11 million dead in the camps! 15 million
Russian soldiers dead! The Japanese could only yearn to achieve
numbers like that.
Cub Driver
>The act, as portrayed in band of brothers, isn't justifiable on those
>grounds.
That's true, *if* it happened. The movie-makers are very careful not
to say so, because they (or Ambrose) were unable or too lazy to
document it. We are simply hearing a war story from the veterans.
The closest we come to determining the truth is when the question is
put to the lieutenant in a later episode. He says (as I recall) that
he is familiar with the rumor and encourages it because it keeps the
men on their toes when he is around.
Cub Driver
>I disagree. Uncle Joe butchered more people and they were from his own
>empire
I'm not sure that he butchered more people, and in any event I am
willing to cut a butcher more slack if he keeps his murders in the
family. The German crime was not only that it killed its own Jews and
others, but that it went out and enslaved other nations for the
specific purpose of catching and killing *their* Jews (and others).
Velovich03
Actually, that you find it "emotional claptrap" *is* my point.
History isn't physics, emotions, of the people that live through an event,
these are important.
Duwop
news:<4018eed...@news.pacific.net.au>...
> Duwop <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : already...@hotmail.com (Ernest Kind) wrote in message
> :> Regardless of which excuse is given, the same acts committed by German
> :> troops were considered war crimes and the perpetrators severely
> :> punished.
>
> : Please name 4 instances for which german troops were indicted. And,
> : what their punishment was. You can't, can you? Du drecksau.
>
> Well, let's start with Valentin Bessin, Friedal Bode, Kurt
> Briesemeister, Friedrich Christ. The were among the 73 who were accused and
> convicted for the Malmedy and related massacres.
Well, if Malmedy is the only instance that can be brought up you have
made my point, thank you. I take it there were no other individual
soldiers accused tried and convicted of murdering Allied soldiers
during battle then?
Unless you think that the Malmedy crimes are no different than what
occurred by Allied antagonists. Then you would be saying that
scattered killings by individuals and small groups is the same as
organized deliberate slaughter (shades of einsatzgruppen) . I
don't think you are making that argument though. But then again, why
did you bring up Malmedy defendants in defense of Ernest's complaint?
Chris Mark
>made the order and carried it out would >be war criminals. There is
>also a big difference between not taking >prisoners and killing
>disarmed soldiers who surrendered.
Such technically illegal orders, often not directly stated but suggested (such
as telling aircrew to "fire on anything that moves" for example) were far from
uncommon.
An example from a memoir, Charles B. MacDonald's "Company Commander": One of
his sergeants told MacDonald over the radio that he had captured three
prisoners but could not withdraw with them. "Roger," answered MacDonald, "do
what you can." The platoon returned without its prisoners. "Today Company G
commited a war crime," wrote MacDonald. "They are going to win the war,
however, so I don't suppose it matters."
Chris Mark
Blitzko
infantry regiment, I came across a patrol report that detailed the incident
where my late father was wounded. On this night patrol in Caen, which was
led by a corporal along with six other ranks, including my father, they
came across a German soldier who was asleep in his slit trench (likely from
exhaustion). He was disarmed and woken. However, he attempted to run away
and was shot by the corporal leading the patrol. The corporal checked the
pulse of the German and found out that he was not dead, so he ordered two
of his men to pick up the wounded German and carry him back to the Canadian
lines. At this point, German machine guns opened fire on the patrol - one
man was killed, my father was wounded and a third went missing (but later
turned up OK). When the firing stopped, the corporal then said the
following in his report: "My patrol, by this time, was very jittery so I
ordered them back to our our lines. Before leaving, I shot the German
through the head - and made sure that he was dead."
Now, this was a wounded enemy combatant, who had been taken prisoner, then
was wounded while trying to escape. Was the corporal justified in killing
him, even though he posed no threat at that point? In fact, the corporal
was risking his patrol to more hostile fire by firing his gun, since that
is likely what alerted the Germans to their position in the first place
(when he fired twice at the fleeing German). Unfortunately, I never had the
chance to ask my father his opinion - he was there after all and certainly
could have shed more light on the whole incident. Perhaps the wounded
German would have died in any case. Was this murder, retribution or a
justifiable and unavoidable death? I don't think we who are the children of
those who fought can really answer those questions. I wonder sometimes what
I would have done if I were in that corporal's position.
frs...@yahoo.com (Bill F) wrote in
news:buhdit$j14$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu:
> I saw HBO's -band of brothers- recently and was rather surprised by the
> apparent murder of POWs in one episode with no real comment. If this
> was a real incident, was the person involved ever charged, held to
> account or even identified. Or was this just rumors/stories with
> nobody mentioned by name that were put into the show.
>
Peter J Lusby
>
> With the events as portrayed on the video, that conclusion doesn't
> apply. It applies in lots of other situations, but not that one.
> Maybe I didn't understand all of what was going on watching it, but
> its difficult to see the terrible experience the shooter went through
> up to that point that led him to execute prisoners.
>
> And to be clear, my problem isn't with the people who fought in the
> war over this, its with those who made the program. The ambiguity
> later in the program about what the other man did is ok with me. But
> the way the program does the earlier incident is just unacceptable to
> me because its openly showing an act rather than being ambigious about
> the act or the circumstances.
>
Sorry, but the series _is_ quite equivocal. In the programme titled
"Day of Days" on the 2nd DVD, we see the private (sorry, I can't recall
which one - Malarkey?) talking with the "Volksdeutsch" prisoner, we see
Lt Speirs cadge a pack of cigarettes, we see the private leave the
location where the prisoners are, we see Lt Speirs offer the cigarettes
around, then we _hear_ several bursts of automatic weapons fire, and see
a look of stunned surprise on the private's face. But we never actually
see Speirs shoot the prisoners.
Given that the series was filmed with the full co-operation of the
surviving members of Easy Company, I'd guess that the story of Speirs
shooting the prisoners was one with great currency in the 506 PIR, but
one which nobody could ever verify. So Spielberg and Hanks decide to
put it in the series that way precisely because it was ambiguous.
As far as the "no prisoners" rule is concerned, we see that in operation
over and over again throughout the series, and I'm sure it's authentic.
Any German soldier who stands up, raises his hands, and yells "Nichts
schiessen!" is immediately gunned down. Airborne infantry, operating
behind enemy lines, are just not in any position to take prisoners. For
that reason, I'm inclined to believe that the incident with Spiers never
did actually take place - there never should have been any prisoners for
him to shoot.
Regards
Peter
--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware"- Rupert Brooke, "The Soldier"
Peter J. Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
http://www.lusby.org
--
Bill F
> Bill F wrote
>
> >I saw HBO's -band of brothers- recently
> >and was rather surprised by the apparent
> >murder of POWs in one episode with no
> >real comment. If this was a real incident,
> >was the person involved ever charged,
> >held to account or even identified. Or was
> >this just rumors/stories with nobody
> >mentioned by name that were put into the
> >show.
>
> Murder is the wrong word.
> Retribution is a better one and is allowed by the code of battle.
In this case, I think murder is the appropriate word. There
wasn't any battle involved, there was no clear reasoning for
retribution shown and the troops in question had not been shown
to have participated in anything providing any sort of a reasoning
for the act.
Two disarmed prisoners were deliberatly shot by someone who was
not directly involved in a battle with them. And didn't seem
to have any particular motivation for killing them. To me, thats
murder. The people writing the program could have
come up with any number of different situations which I would
not use the word murder to describe, but they did not.
> Retribution is present in all wars. After the Waffen SS killed American
> prisoners at the Battle of the Bulge Americans killed many Germans as
> retribution.
>
> Surrender is allowed to avoid undue violence but breaks down when
> bloodshed occurs.
>
> Once fighting begins it is difficult to surrender. If the enemy has
> recently killed your friends and then tries to surrender he is most
> likely facing death.
But if you have accepted a surrender, disarmed them, set them by a
roadside, then come back and shoot them later. Thats not a problem
of surrender procedure, its a deliberate act.
> Soldiers generally accept surrender as necessary to survive. Each side
> must take prisoners. Its is a reciprocal act.. I served in the Pacific
> during WW 2 and observed Japanese in a hopeless situation that did not
> surrender. That made the Pacific war somewhat different than in Europe
I agree with you with regard to those situations. There are lots of
complated situations and people die as a result. I wish the people
doing band of brothers would have used one of those circumstances rather
than show it the way they did.
--
Georg Schwarz
> Total loss of life arising from WW2, started by Hitler, was
> around 40 million people, including 5.6 million Jews. Losses
> arising during Stalin's period of rule from
> collectivisation, execution, dying in the gulags or dying of
> deliberate famine were around 15 million people. Hitler is
> clearly the bigger butcher by far.
British historian Alan Bullock write that Stalin has probably killed
almost twice as many people as Hiler.
pretty cynical anyway
--
Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
ge...@epost.de +49 177 8811442
--
Steven James Forsberg
: Well, if Malmedy is the only instance that can be brought up you have
: made my point, thank you. I take it there were no other individual
: soldiers accused tried and convicted of murdering Allied soldiers
: during battle then?
: Unless you think that the Malmedy crimes are no different than what
: occurred by Allied antagonists. Then you would be saying that
: scattered killings by individuals and small groups is the same as
: organized deliberate slaughter (shades of einsatzgruppen) . I
: don't think you are making that argument though. But then again, why
: did you bring up Malmedy defendants in defense of Ernest's complaint?
I have not "made your point", thank you. Please note that I
posted "Malemedy and related massacres" -- the Dachau tribunal was not
only for Malmedy but various other acts/alleged acts, including a few
in which individual Germans shot prisoners. In addition, there were
other tribunals.
You seemed to believe that the Nuremberg trials were the only
"war crimes" trials held, and that everyone not tried at Nuremberg got
off scot free. You asked for an example where German soldiers were
tried for shooting prisoners. Thus I gave the Dachau tribunal, where many
were. Malmedy is not the "only" instance. It is just an example.
And there is the matter of "no prisoners" orders given by various US commands ("shades of einsatzgrupen" indeed). It seems that your argument
is that if US soldiers committed murder, they should not be held accountable
just because the Nazis committed more murders?
regards,
------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
--
Alan Allport
news:busf1j$che$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> I wish the people
> doing band of brothers would have used one of those circumstances rather
> than show it the way they did.
The writers have, however, prompted you to think, which is surely the
hallmark of any successful drama ...
Alan.
--
Steven James Forsberg
: Given that the series was filmed with the full co-operation of the
: shooting the prisoners was one with great currency in the 506 PIR, but
: one which nobody could ever verify. So Spielberg and Hanks decide to
: put it in the series that way precisely because it was ambiguous.
There is yet another reason. For all sorts of reasons, both
legal and ethical, the movie makers were very unlikely to show an
identified actual participant committing a war crime. IIRC, the other
events shown were 'non-named' characters and fictional 'composites.'
Many of the key figures in the TV mini-series, however, carry the real
names of real WWII participants. THus, from a strictly legal sense, the
production company is going to frown on any "accusation" that could be
interpreted as slander/libel. The last thing they wanted was a lawsuit from
a surviving veteran (or his relatives), quite apart from whether or not
they could win such a suit.
A second involves the sometimes delicate ethics involved in getting
people to talk about events of dubious morality/legality. A lot of veterans
will gladly tell a historian "everything" -- as long as it is not
attributed to them and the names are changed to protect the innocent. Of
course, this is quite opposed to the idea of documented/footnoted history,
which is what most historians strive for. In addition, it has long simply
been considered "bad form" to name names unless there was a trial
involved. As one example, in John Tolands "Battle" he describes an American
shooting German prisoners in the back of the head. He names all the other
soldiers who were around, and his research was exhaustive. Thus, it is
reasonable conclude that he knew who that American soldier was. Yet, he is
not named, and remains anonymous (unlike virtually all other Toland
subjects).
Law and manners often result in a decision not to "name names".
: As far as the "no prisoners" rule is concerned, we see that in operation
: over and over again throughout the series, and I'm sure it's authentic.
: Any German soldier who stands up, raises his hands, and yells "Nichts
: schiessen!" is immediately gunned down. Airborne infantry, operating
: behind enemy lines, are just not in any position to take prisoners. For
: that reason, I'm inclined to believe that the incident with Spiers never
: did actually take place - there never should have been any prisoners for
: him to shoot.
Many soldiers, both German and American, simply did not follow
"take no prisoners" orders. This often resulted in confusion for either
side, and heated disagreements within a side over what to do with prisoners
who were unexpected. During major operations (the Battle of the Bulge is
what I've read about most recently) there were often wild discrepencies in
how prisoners were treated from one field to the next. Even as some US
troops were being machine-gunned at the "Malmedy massacre", for example,
Toland describes an SS Officer a short distance away protecting prisoners
and apologizing for any mistreatment.
regards,
----------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Andrew Clark
"Georg Schwarz" <ge...@epost.de> wrote
> British historian Alan Bullock write that Stalin
> has probably killed almost twice as many
> people as Hiler.
Can you give a specific quote? The figures I gave in
response to your last post were from Bullock's "Hitler and
Stalin".
--
Duwop
> Duwop <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Well, if Malmedy is the only instance that can be brought up you have
> : made my point, thank you. I take it there were no other individual
> : soldiers accused tried and convicted of murdering Allied soldiers
> : during battle then?
>
> posted "Malemedy and related massacres"
So, I am expected make your argument for you? I can only read what you
write sir. And what you wrote essentially compared randoms individual
murders which we all know happened, on all sides, with Malmedy and
related massacres. "Massacres", again you wish to compare individual
random crimes to organized massacres?
Show where an individual German soldier who, during the heat of battle
and its immediate aftermath, shot a few allies who tried to surrender
and was prosecuted, tried, convicted and sentenced. Simply saying
there were tribunals other than Nurnburg doesn't mean a thing.
-- the Dachau tribunal was not
> only for Malmedy but various other acts/alleged acts, including a few
> in which individual Germans shot prisoners. In addition, there were
> other tribunals.
Names please, cites.
There's a very good book recently published that are the memoirs of
the chief prosecutor at the Dachau hearings. Have you read it?
And, if there were some very few who for some reason went to the bar,
what percentage do you think they represent of the total? So small as
to be laughable, surely. And further, since institutional murder was
taught by the German forces, which side do you think committed "take
no prisoners" more often?
> You seemed to believe that the Nuremberg trials were the only
> "war crimes" trials held, and that everyone not tried at Nuremberg got
> off scot free.
I do? Please show me where.
> You asked for an example where German soldiers were
> tried for shooting prisoners. Thus I gave the Dachau tribunal, where many
> were. Malmedy is not the "only" instance. It is just an example.
It is the only example you have mentioned by name, that presumes also
it is your best example, again, you have made my point for me, thank
you.
But please, name others, if you can. Again, I expect you are unable
to.
> And there is the matter of "no prisoners" orders given by various US commands ("shades of einsatzgrupen" indeed). It seems that your argument
> is that if US soldiers committed murder, they should not be held accountable
> just because the Nazis committed more murders?
You really dont seem to know what the einsaztgruppen did by that
comment. Einsaztgruppen were organized murderers who's existance
allowed for something like Malmedy to take place by SS troops. Allies
had nothing remotely similar. Or do you disagree?
Various commands? Cites please. Copies of the orders at least. No?
None exist do they. All we have there are recollections of enlisted
mens feelings and conversations between themselves. But we are still
finding written orders of German atrocities hidden away. No end of
those.
>It seems that your argument
> is that if US soldiers committed murder, they should not be held accountable
> just because the Nazis committed more murders?
There's something to that, rough justice surely. But my take is this:
Allies had no policy, spoken or unspoken, that would allow for the
organized killing of rounded up prisoners as happened at Malmedy. Not
to mention what happened in the East.
The murders that did happen firstly, would have not occurred if
Germany had not caused the war, and secondly are an unfortunate
byproduct of wars. Once again: Allied soldiers should NEVER have been
put into that situation. That they were forced into situations where
they fell short, that's between them and their God.
We also do not know what sort of "field justice" was meeted out to
Allies that trangressed, I do presume some punishments happened. Not
of the sort you'd be happy with most likely.
You and I know that these unplanned transgressions were too frequent,
by all sides. And for you to compare them to organized massacre,
that's all you've done, is heinous.
No, not all murders are equal. And I suspect you believe they are.
But this argument has been done too often here, and better. Here's a
thread from 1997:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&th=f5f8d98c40645b7e&rnum=3>
--
David Thornley
Steven James Forsberg <soc.history.war.world-war-ii> wrote:
>
> There is yet another reason. For all sorts of reasons, both
>legal and ethical, the movie makers were very unlikely to show an
>identified actual participant committing a war crime.
Actually, they did. Winters shoots a German in the act of surrender,
and has nightmares about it afterwards.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
--
Andrew Clark
"Steven James Forsberg" <sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote
> the Dachau tribunal was not only for Malmedy but
> various other acts/alleged acts, including a few
> in which individual Germans shot prisoners.
> In addition, there were other tribunals.
A pretty comprehensive list of the more important UN War
Crimes Commission, Control Council Rule 10, British, US and
French trials can be found at
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/trials.htm
chang
>
> In article <401aaa0...@news.pacific.net.au>,
> Steven James Forsberg <soc.history.war.world-war-ii> wrote:
> >
> > There is yet another reason. For all sorts of reasons, both
> >legal and ethical, the movie makers were very unlikely to show an
> >identified actual participant committing a war crime.
>
> Actually, they did. Winters shoots a German in the act of surrender,
> and has nightmares about it afterwards.
Are you talking about when he run along the dirt road and then shoots
the young Gernman soldier? If so, I don't think he was surrendering. The
German soldier looked at Winters in surprise, but iirc, did nothing to
indicate he was surrendering. In any case, how could Winters accept a
surrender anyway? There were plenty of other German soldiers in the
field who would have gladly shot him if he had paused to take the German
soldier captive.
AIUI, you don't have to accept a surrender (and I don't believe the case
you cited to be one), especially in the heat of battle.
--
Cub Driver
>Actually, they did. Winters shoots a German in the act of surrender,
>and has nightmares about it afterwards.
Winters of course was a major source for the mini-series and
presumably the book. Looking at his face at the epilog, I understand
why; he was certainly the most handsome and articulate of the veterans
shown on camera.
He presumably was quite open to the film-makers about shooting the
German boy--who wasn't surrendering, but merely becoming aware of the
American's presence, as I recall the incident. And the shooting was at
some distance. My take on the incident was that Winters regretted the
necessity for shooting the lad, but that it was imperative at the time
(running forward in a very thin skirmish line--one of the most
realistic I have ever seen on film). He couldn't have known that the
boy wasn't about to seize a weapon, or indeed that he was alone.
In any event, if Winters told the story as it was shown, he would have
no recourse against having it depicted on television.
CH B2
>and has nightmares about it afterwards.
>
He did indeed have nightmares, but the shooting was justified, IMHO. The
German in question was part of a very large group that Winters was confronting
alone, having surprised them coming over a dike with the rest of the platoon a
few seconds behind. He could hardly have accepted a surrender of one soldier,
who was the one closest to him. I think the youth of the soldier bothered him
more than anything, and in a later episode he tells the Colonel (I think) that
he never fired his weapon after that.
David Thornley
Steven James Forsberg <soc.history.war.world-war-ii> wrote:
>
>legal and ethical, the movie makers were very unlikely to show an
>identified actual participant committing a war crime.
Actually, they did. Winters shoots a German in the act of surrender,
and has nightmares about it afterwards.
--
SpiceScoot
>Are you talking about when he run along the dirt road and then shoots
>the young Gernman soldier? If so, I don't think he was surrendering. The
>German soldier looked at Winters in surprise, but iirc, did nothing to
>indicate he was surrendering. In any case, how could Winters accept a
>surrender anyway? There were plenty of other German soldiers in the
>field who would have gladly shot him if he had paused to take the German
>soldier captive.
Winters did the ONLY thing he could have done. He had (through a
miscommunication) outdistanced the rest of his men (Less than a platoon). If
he would have paused to negotiate with the young German he would have been
shot. Also had he not gained fire superiority the rest of his men would have
faced nearly a German company when they arrived. As it was Winters had half of
them running and ducking by the time his guys arrived. Many of the accounts of
infantry combat I have read contain examples of men who came face to face with
the enemy and were imobilized by fear or reluctance to take a life or whatever.
The real Winters was able to overcome these feelings and fire his weapon
effectively. That is why he came alive home with several purple hearts and a
DSC, among other decorations. The men with him felt that he was an outstanding
officer and his bravery and skills had saved their lives on many occasions.
Accusing him of a war crime without taking the time to think it through is
reprehensible. LRK
>AIUI, you don't have to accept a surrender (and I don't believe the case
>you cited to be one), especially in the heat of battle.
I think you do but when one enemy out of a hundred appears to be vacillating
and the other 99 seem to be ready to fight you can shoot them in any order that
seems appropriate at the time. LRK
--
Justin Wigg
> Total loss of life arising from WW2, started by Hitler, was
> around 40 million people, including 5.6 million Jews. Losses
> arising during Stalin's period of rule from
> collectivisation, execution, dying in the gulags or dying of
> deliberate famine were around 15 million people. Hitler is
> clearly the bigger butcher by far.
Whilst I am far from being a Hitler apologist, I fail to see how it is
valid to attribute *all* loss of life, including that of the Pacific
theatre, to Hitler. Bearing in mind that the Sino-Japanese conflict
was well underway prior to September 1 1939, it might be a better
course to attribute all KIA & German concentration/death camp figures
from the ETO *only* to Hitler. (I am certainly not going to try and
argue that Hitler was not responsible for WWII - only that the figures
from the PTO were not his responsibility.)
However, I think the original point was/is that if you examine purely
the figures from *internal* *organised* executions/camps that were not
necessarily part of the armed conflict [*] then Stalin is accountable
for more deaths than Hitler.
In my humble opinion, Stalin is not held in anywhere near the levels
of public contempt that he deserves.
[*] As a related question, what are people's feelings regarding
whether the Nazi campaign to exterminate European Jewery was actually
part of WWII or not? I've never been sure on this matter. The
campaign against the Jews was well underway prior to WWII, yet without
the German victories against the Eastern and Western European nations,
Hitler would not have had "access" to the Jewish populations of those
countries. So, is the Jewish campaign generally considered a part of
WWII or not?
--
SQL> select * from users | Justin Wigg - Perth, AUSTRALIA
where clue > 0; | http://www.dws.com.au
no rows selected | Reply: jw...@dws.com.au
--
Steven James Forsberg
: AIUI, you don't have to accept a surrender (and I don't believe the case
: you cited to be one), especially in the heat of battle.
to accept a surrender ("No quarter asked nor give" is no longer allowed).
However, as you point out, during a battle there is the very real problem
of identifying who is surrendering. At least that is my understanding.
However, consider the rather odd circumstance of someone trying
to surrender. The enemy supposedly can't shoot them -- but apparently their
own side can if they are surrendering without permission. Doesn't seem to
make a lot of sense, but then this is war.
regards,
-----------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
--
narrl...@hotmail.com
> He presumably was quite open to the film-makers about shooting the
> German boy--who wasn't surrendering, but merely becoming aware of the
> American's presence, as I recall the incident.
If we're talking about the same thing, I recall
this in Holland after Market-Garden, when the
paras outflank a German unit resting in a field
on the far side of raised road. Winters comes
to the top of the embankment and sees the unit
and the one straggling soldier at the same time.
The German sees him and makes a slight hand
gesture, as if to say, "I understand the situation
as well as you do--you either have to turn around
and leave or start shooting right now. TS for me."
Ed Frank
Cub Driver
>I fail to see how it is
>valid to attribute *all* loss of life, including that of the Pacific
>theatre, to Hitler
Well, I suppose you can deduct lives lost in China prior to June 1940
from the total. But there would have been no Pacific War (1941-1945)
without Hitler. I think it's perfectly appropriate to give him credit
for the whole nine yards (which by my understanding is 55 million).
Justin Wigg
> Well, I suppose you can deduct lives lost in China prior to June 1940
> from the total. But there would have been no Pacific War (1941-1945)
> without Hitler.
I understand your point that if it wasn't for Hitler's "distractions"
in Europe, Japan would have been much more reluctant to wage war in a
Pacific region where France, Holland and England's (not to mention the
USA's) *full* resources could have been brought to bear against the
IJA/IJN.
Is there any evidence that Japan had plans to wage war in the Pacific
even if Hitler had not unleashed the European conflict?
What thoughts are there on what America's involvement in the Pacific
would have been in such a scenario where PH would not have been
attacked and the conflict was in the Pacific only? Would they have
become the same "arsenal of democracy" if it wasn't the European
nations themselves that were being overrun? (In other words, would
the USA have cared if the Europeans were losing their colonies?)
Would the Japanese have avoided any actions against the Phillipines?
I understand that relations between Japan and the USA were extremely
strained in 1941, but Japan might have trodden more lightly in regards
to the USA if the Wehrmacht were still sitting at home in their German
garrisons...
Thanks in advance.
Andrew Clark
"Justin Wigg" <jw...@dws.com.au> wrote
> Whilst I am far from being a Hitler apologist, I fail to
see
> how it is valid to attribute *all* loss of life, including
> that of the Pacific theatre, to Hitler. Bearing in mind
that
> the Sino-Japanese conflict was well underway prior to
> September 1 1939, it might be a better
> course to attribute all KIA & German concentration/death
> camp figures from the ETO *only* to Hitler.
This is a very fair point. However, I carelessly omitted to
mention that the casualty figure of 40 million was for
European nations only, ie excluding US losses in all
theatres and Chinese, Japanese and other Pacific losses. So
Hitler killed 40 million Europeans by starting the European
side of WW2, while Stalin killed 15 million Soviet citizens
in his terror.
> However, I think the original point was/is that if you
> examine purely the figures from *internal* *organised*
> executions/camps that were not necessarily part
> of the armed conflict [*] then Stalin is accountable
> for more deaths than Hitler.
> [*] As a related question, what are people's
> feelings regarding whether the Nazi campaign
> to exterminate European Jewery was actually
> part of WWII or not? I've never been sure on this matter.
The former point is probably true: about 7 million died in
the Nazi terror and 15 million in the Stalinist terror. But,
to address the second point, the Holocaust was in Hitler's
mind an absolutely central and integral part of the armed
conflict: indeed in Hitler's mind the invasion of Poland and
the East was *primarily* a racial war rather than political
or even economic (see Fleming for a good dicussion of this).
So excluding war-related deaths from the list of Hitler's
crimes is to my mind impossible.
> In my humble opinion, Stalin is not held in anywhere
> near the levels of public contempt that he deserves.
Oh, I completely agree. And he remains very popular in
Russia to this day.
(snips)
Cub Driver
>Is there any evidence that Japan had plans to wage war in the Pacific
>even if Hitler had not unleashed the European conflict?
Given the pasting that Japan had recently received from the Russian
army, I find it inconceivable that it would have gone to war against
the British, never mind the French, Dutch, and Americans, all of whom
would have had to become involved in any push into "the southern
treasure chest".
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: cubd...@operamail.com
see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
--