More WWII Questions

[vontsira]

@Snnipe_70E

I read a book a few years ago by a marine. He stated that the Japanese would aim for the medic, having a dead medic would effect the moral of the marines fighting them.

@obbn

This. The Germans could generally be counted on to respect the red cross, however the Japanese would specifically aim for and kill medics. As mentioned, the loss of a medic was devastating on the moral of the troops.

From what I’ve read, the same strategy often adopted in the Vietnam war, by the Viet Cong / North Vietnamese, vis-a-vis American troops. In both situations, one takes it that it was a matter of fighting to win – chivalry not high on the agenda.

[appleciders]

1. Neither the Allies nor the Germans intentionally bombed hospitals that I’m aware of. They would avoid dropping a bomb if they were pretty sure it would hit a hospital. However, both sides carpet bombed cities at night. Bomb-aiming technology was pretty crappy even in daylight. Lots and lots of hospitals took hits. I’m not aware of any Japanese carpet bombing, but I’m sure that they weren’t a lot more discriminating in their occupations of China and SE Asia.

2. A soldier on either side easily might elect not to shoot a medic. However, outside of snipers who were hidden and had time to consider and prepare their shots, soldiers in war frequently can’t see their targets well enough or have enough time to make that kind of decision. The vast majority of bullets fired in war are fired to make the enemy keep their heads down and interfere with their shooting, and lots and lots of people get killed that way. In addition, things like bombs and artillery are not aimed at individual soldiers. Medics weren’t much safer than grunts.

[jk1245]

It’s worth noting that while Germany did generally follow the Geneva convention on the Western front, the Eastern Front was a far different ordeal, with all rules of war and basic human decency almost completely discarded. The Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva convention, so Germany treated them accordingly (though, as signatories of the agreement, Germany was supposed to abide by the rules regardless of their opponents status). Remember that according to Nazi ideology, most Russian soldiers were untermensch, subhuman. Not quite as bad as Jews, but still not worthy of life.

Ambulances were targeted as well as field hospitals. Standard practice was to execute wounded in captured hospitals or at least use them as slave labor if they could work at all. The death rates of POWs on both sides was horrendous, assuming you even made it to “POW” status, as many captured soldiers were shot on the spot.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Years ago, I read a book about American nurses in the Pacific during WWII. U.S. Navy hospital ships were painted white with big red crosses on them, and were floodlit at night - but none were sunk or even attacked by the Japanese during WWII, if I remember right. So maybe the Imperial Japanese Navy was at least slightly more chivalric than the other forces of the Emperor.

[bump]

@silenus

For US forces, your survival rate was best in the Navy (except the submarine service) and worst in the Marines. Army and Air Force were somewhere in between.

That’s only because the USMC was so relatively small compared to the other services.

The USAAF wasn’t a great place to be in Europe if you were aircrew; over the course of the war, the 8th AF in Europe suffered more KIA/MIA than the entire USMC and Navy combined. People tend to discount the strategic air offensive because slow flying bombers aren’t sexy or gritty in the way that submarines, fighter planes and infantry combat are, and Hollywood has made maybe 3-4 movies in total about the B-17/B-24 bombers (Command Decision, 12 O’Clock High and Memphis Belle are the only ones I can think of)

[ftg]

The Japanese, during the conquest of Hong Kong, killed many patients and medicos, raped nurses, etc. Pretty much standard WWII Japanese behavior.

The mentality of the time was that soldiers were supposed to die heroicially in battle. To be wounded, get sent to to a hospital, or even, heavens forbid, mustered out and sent home, was a great dishonor. And that was their attitude towards their own soldiers. The disgust towards Allied patients was even deeper.

---

As far as surviving, it wasn’t so much the branch but what assignment in that branch. E.g., Army Air Force: If you’re on a bomber crew in Europe, your odds are pretty poor. But if you’re ground crew, support, etc., it’s a pretty good deal.

Being a replacement rifleman wasn’t all that great. You’re replacing someone who got hurt. So you’re probably going into a bad situation. Plus the new guys are the ones that are most likely to get hurt.

[Little_Nemo]

@jk1245

It’s worth noting that while Germany did generally follow the Geneva convention on the Western front, the Eastern Front was a far different ordeal, with all rules of war and basic human decency almost completely discarded. The Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva convention, so Germany treated them accordingly (though, as signatories of the agreement, Germany was supposed to abide by the rules regardless of their opponents status).

I once read how the Germans applied some twisted legalist reasoning in their invasion of the Soviet Union. According to the recognized rules of war, an invading army is allowed to appropriate government property in the territory it occupies but is supposed to respect privately owned property. When the Germans invaded, they declared that the Communist regime had abolished the idea of private property and therefore all property the Germans could lay their hands on had belonged to the Soviet government and was legally subject to seizure.

[the_diego]

^
Sounds perfectly logical. But they could have moved back a bit, reject the communist idea, and settled only for crown land belonging to the tsar and his family.