Well, the paratroop forces operated a bit differently that other conventional forces. Not in a position to get a cite, however, so not sure if it was ‘officially endorsed’ that no prisoners would be taken in certain circumstances, but it’s hard to understand how they WOULD take prisoners when they were far behind enemy lines with no logistics or heavy weapons/support.
As for the Japanese, that was as much their own issue as ours, since until fairly late in the war the Japanese themselves often refused to surrender, even booby trapping their wounded or having their wounded continuing to fight until killed.
While that would explain Allied reluctance to take Japanese prisoners, it doesn’t address the times when the surrenders were accepted and the disarmed Japanese prisoners were then killed.
In any case, I simply mentioned it as a case of “no quarter”; I have no interest in discussing whether the Allies were justified in their actions or not.
AFAIK (from memory) the Japanese didn’t attempt to surrender in significant numbers until fairly late in the war. This isn’t trying to excuse or justify allied action, but instead to explain the reality of the situation…basically, you can’t take prisoners of folks who won’t surrender.
…but the thing is, that really isn’t a case. “No quarter” is more of an announcement at the front end and an understanding that both sides have.
That’s why I didn’t think Goliad (mentioned above) was a good example either. I thought that the Texans surrendered with the understanding that they would be allowed to live… regardless of any concerns in their minds based on the reputation that the Mexicans had for killing prisoners.
True. The declaration by the Mexican Congress was kept secret, so that soldiers who surrendered were not aware that they were subject to execution (except for those who were unarmed when captured, who were spared). However, then the Alamo itself isn’t a good example either, since the defenders were never given the opportunity to surrender before the Mexicans attacked. The “no quarter” flag was raised from the beginning.
This is absolutely 100% untrue. There was no policy, official or unofficial that paratroopers not take prisoners. Such a policy would be a flagrant war crime; the prohibition against declaring no quarter goes back to Hague 1899 and has been part and parcel of every international treaty on the customs and laws of war since. Article 23:
There is absolutely nothing hard about taking prisoners in an airborne operation, and prisoners were taken (and lost) in every airborne operation of the war.
One of my step fathers indirectly described to me that his infantry unit killed prisoners in Europe, perhaps the Bulge.
“Private Plant, take this prisoner back to headquarters. You have no clue where Headquarters is with the lines moving. You’re scared as shit. So the prisoner tries to escape. You go back and the Sergeant says, “Tough.””
Huh? What exactly isn’t the Alamo a good example of??
In my OP I was trying to distinguish between a couple of examples of killing those who may want to surrender vs an established convention dealing with siege warfare.
The fact that Santa Anna had made it clear to the defenders of the Alamo that “no quarter” would be given, by raising his blood red flag and by playing Èl Degüello, all of the defenders knew they faced a “kill or be killed” situation. That’s a pretty good example of “no quarter” warfare. The defenders no longer had an option of surrendering.
*When William Travis decided to defend the Alamo the insurrection of the Texans was more against the dictatorial rule of President-General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna than a rebellion against Mexico per se. This is evidenced by the flag that was flown over the Alamo. It was the Mexican tricolor of red, white and green modified by having 1824 sewn into the white strip. The 1824 stood for the liberal constitution that Mexico had adopted right after independence from Spain. Santa Anna had abrogated the constitution by taking away all autonomy of the Mexican states. Texas was not the only Mexican state to rebell against Santa Anna’s usurpation of power. Zacatecas and Yucatan, among others, rebelled as well. (Texas was not actually a separate Mexican state at the time. It was part of the dual state of Texas-Coahuila, a matter of some antagonism for the Texans at the time.)
As it happened Texans elsewhere had declared independence by the time of the Battle of the Alamo but Travis was not aware of this and therefore the Mexican flag with 1824 emblazened on it continued to be flag the defenders of the Alamo fought under.
In contrast, when Santa Anna chose to make the Cathedral of San Fernando his headquarters he flew from the belfry of this church not the tricolor flag of Mexico but instead a pure blood-red flag to indicate that the insurrectionists would be butchered even if they surrendered*.
If you didn’t want to discuss it, maybe you shouldn’t have brought it up. The Imperial Japanese army had a long estabilshed history of killing their prisoners. Nanking, Bataan, Midway, etc…
Were you referring to a specific incident of disarmed Japanese prisoners being killed by Australian or Allied soldiers?
Even to this day warriors are warriors and some would prefer to die rather than be captured. I have never been in the military but pain and torture I think could endure…but there are a few that may break me. Even with all our war rules that we follow we all know it still happens. They didn’t even follow it though…an officer was always brought back to ransom or get info out of.
Yep, but toque just means “bugle call” and it’s often ommited/substituted by the verb, which happens to be tocar (play (music)) or occasionally in the case of military calls, llamar (lit to call). Toque de revista (bugle call to review) but llamar a revista (call (the troops) to review), toque de diana (reveille bugle call) but tocar diana (play reveille).
shrug XT made mention to a scene of American soldiers shooting prisoners in Saving Private Ryan, saying that “my understanding is that, while this wasn’t official, it did happen”. I posted my statement in support of that. The question of whether the shooting of prisoners was justified or not is not an issue suitable for this forum and irrelevant to the OP.
No, what I was referring to was widespread practice rather than a particular incident; the result of the dehumanization of the enemy, hatred, and brutal fighting present in the Pacific. The best book I’ve seen covering this (both the atmosphere and the treatment of prisoners) is John Dower’s War Without Mercy. An article by Niall Ferguson covers this (pages 180 and 181) as well and is more easily accessible, though.
