# Do naval vessels rescue enemy seamen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 18, 2024, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031 "2024-06-18T23:05:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2024, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031/21 "2024-06-22T02:46:33Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > As to the Japanese Navy in WWII, Googling led me to several reports of subs sinking Allied vessels, then ramming lifeboats and machine-gunning survivors. There’s also the Buyo Maru incident in 1943, involving a Japanese military transport sunk by the American sub _Wahoo_. A number of Japanese survivors were machine-gunned under orders of the sub’s commander, [Mush Morton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_W._Morton) (there’s a dispute about exactly what happened, but Morton [felt he’d done the right thing](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2003/july/mush-morton-and-buyo-maru-massacre)). > [@](#): > > Although Morton’s actions may be considered an atrocity to the modern reader, he and many other officers believed he had taken the correct action. The Japanese still posed a threat to U.S. forces nearby. If rescued, they could have been sent to fight U.S. troops on New Guinea. Morton’s executive officer, future Rear Admiral Dick O’Kane, recalled that Morton told him, “Dick . . . the army bombards strategic areas, and the air corps uses area-bombing so the ground forces can advance. Both bring civilian casualties. Now without other casualties, I will prevent these soldiers from getting ashore, for every one who does can mean an American life.” Sadly, many of the survivors of the torpedoing were actually Indian prisoners of war on their way to forced labor camps. ---
**Author:** ![Snipe70e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/51bf81/32.png) [@Snipe70e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snipe70e)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2024, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031/22 "2024-06-22T04:18:07Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > here’s a scene in the 50s movie _The Cruel Sea_ (based on a novel drawing on the author’s wartime experiences) showing a grim-faced Royal Navy captain not only not stopping to pick up survivors from a sunk British ship, but actually going full steam through or over them because of enemy U-boats in the area. Merchant sailors were expendable. If you ship went down in the North Atlantic you might very well not be piccked up. Some convoys had a “rescue ship” that had room to pick up suvivors. But a freighter or tanker would not stop for fear of being sunk. If they could pick up the life boats sea painter then there was a chance. Do not forget the US service with the highest loss rate was the US Merchant Marine. And after the war they received nothing for their service. Also if their ship was sunk their pay ended the moment the ship went under. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2024, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031/23 "2024-06-22T07:44:13Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > There’s also the Buyo Maru incident in 1943, involving a Japanese military transport sunk by the American sub _Wahoo_. A number of Japanese survivors were machine-gunned under orders of the sub’s commander, [Mush Morton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_W._Morton) (there’s a dispute about exactly what happened, but Morton [felt he’d done the right thing](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2003/july/mush-morton-and-buyo-maru-massacre)). It makes sense, sort of. If you attack a destroyer, then sinking the destroyer is the goal, so you might as well let the crew live. But if you attack a troop transport, killing the _troops_ is the goal, so allowing the survivors to get away would be counterproductive. A sailor without a ship is nothing - he’s no longer a threat. An infantryman without a ship is still an infantryman. If he gets to shore, he’s a threat. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031/24 "2024-06-22T22:47:26Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > It makes sense, sort of. It only makes “sense” in the context that the Pacific War was fought as a war of annihilation, where quarter was rarely asked or given and was filled with atrocities. This was a war in which upon defeating the enemy [entering a hospital and bayonetting the patients, doctors, and nurses was a thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Singapore#Alexandra_Hospital_massacre), for example. Hundreds of waterlogged soldiers who have lost all of their gear and supplies are no more (or less) of a threat or a legitimate target than hundreds of floating sailors. If anything, they’d represent a burden to the forces already ashore, as they’d simply be more mouths to feed in a situation where Japanese logistics were so bad that their forces frequently starved. A couple or three things to additionally note. The only infantry at the scene were the Indian POWs from the 2nd battalion, 16th Punjab regiment. The Japanese soldiers were from the 26th Field Ordnance Depot. A second is that sailors can and were given rifles and used as infantry, with or without proper infantry training, the practice was particularly common in the IJN which used a wide variety of [Imperial Japanese Navy land forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_land_forces) during the war. The final thing is that this thread has seriously undercut my faith in wiki as a source. I was going to point out the IJN’s SNLF (Special Naval Landing Forces), frequently misidentified as Japanese “marines” as an example of the high end of IJN land forces, with Special Base Forces as more towards the low end. This is what wiki has to say on [SNLFs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Naval_Landing_Forces): > The **Special Naval Landing Forces** ( **SNLF** ; [Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language): 海軍特別陸戦隊, [romanized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese): _Kaigun Tokubetsu Rikusentai_) were the [marines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marines) of the [Imperial Japanese Navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy) (IJN) and were a part of the [IJN land forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_Land_Forces). Go down four paragraphs and it says this: > The SNLF was not a [marine force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marines), but was instead sailors who had basic infantry training and were employed in landings as early as the [Russo-Japanese War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War) and the [Boxer Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion). So yeah, the wiki article can’t even agree with itself. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2024, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031/25 "2024-06-26T05:27:07Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > If anything, they’d represent a burden to the forces already ashore, as they’d simply be more mouths to feed in a situation where Japanese logistics were so bad that their forces frequently starved. This exactly. As noted, the Japanese troops in the Pacific were chronically short of all sorts of supplies, including ammunition and medicine, in addition to food. Simply sinking the transport would have been sufficient. The reverse wouldn’t have been the same had the Japanese been able to sink transports (or had choosen to target them with their submarines). The US had sufficient supplies that resupplying them wasn’t generally a problem, after the early years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-naval-vessels-rescue-enemy-seamen/1003031.md?page=1)