Oh the Humanity?

DicheBach · 03-03-17, 01:44 PM

General question about WWII era submarine warfare: how "standard" was it to "allow" the crew of merchant ships to escape?

I'm reminded of that scene in Das Boot where they torpedo the thing and then give it several hours to abandon, and then when they torp it again, they realize there are still crew on board and it is a dramatic moment where one of the crew of the uboat says something about rescuing them and the skipper points out that is impossible.

And then I also noted this little comment in the wiki page for U-178 (one of the boats which served in the Monsun Gruppe).

Quote:

In the early hours of 14 July, the American Liberty ship Robert Bacon was torpedoed about 35 miles off the Mozambique Light. The crew of 44 and 27 Armed Guards (the ship was armed with two 3-inch and eight 20 mm guns), abandoned ship before U-178 finished her off with two more torpedoes. The U-boat surfaced and questioned the survivors in one of the boats, giving them directions to land and wishing them good luck before leaving.

Given the savagery in so many other aspects of WWII, it is almost a bit unbelievable that submarines would indulge the risk of trying to assist the crews of their victim merchant ships to survive.

Was it doctrine that subs would allow merchant men to disembark before striking a coup de grace under conditions where it was tenable? Or was it just an unwritten convention?

propbeanie · 03-03-17, 02:14 PM

Doctrine of all the navies was "kill the rotten s.o.b.s", but even some of the Japanese boats would surface and give directions to survivors. However, a lot of them (not just Japanese) also would machine-gun the lifeboats and survivors in the water...

Kind of depends upon the skipper and his feelings toward his fellow man...

JoeSnow · 03-03-17, 03:05 PM

When the war started in 1939, there were international "Rules" that were supposed to be adhered to for submarines. Merchant ships were to be boarded and inspected for contraband cargo and--if such was found--the crews were to be allowed off the ship before it was sunk. Look up Prize Rules for that period.

The Germans, for the most part, adhered to these regulations as was practicable and allowed many merchant crews to take to the lifeboats. However, the regulations made it very risky for the submarine crews and the rules were "relaxed" gradually resulting in unrestricted submarine warfare. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the Americans tossed those same rules in the nearest latrine as the Japanese had broken all conventions by attacking before declaring war. The US went immediately to unrestricted warfare and all Axis targets were fired on without warning (except hospital ships).

As Propbeanie points out, both sides had some of each behavior. There are very few instances recorded of Germans firing on survivors and they actually tended to be more humanitarian when possible. American skippers were really allowed to act at their own discretion and usually let the survivors tend to themslves.

One notable exception for the Americans was Mush Morton in the Wahoo. After sinking a transport he surfaced and the water was full of surviving Japanese. Being close to New Guinea (Japanese controlled) he determined to kill them all. They took to the guns. He put it all in his patrol report and was not rebutted by high command for what he had done. He also was not praised. Hence--by lack of statement--the US command left it to the discretion of the submarine commander. Very few--if any--did what Morton had done. (See Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" for a complete story on this).

Having spoken with quite a few WWII subvets, my belief is they felt sorry for the survivors but were really powerless to help them without putting themselves at considerable risk. I believe the Germans felt the same. Probably most all nationalities for that matter. After all, they were all sailors and all knew that it could very easily be them in the water instead of the other guy.

One subvet I talked to said the only thing he had bad dreams about was watching the survivors of a burning tanker they had hit trying futily to put out the fire as it drew closer... It still haunted his dreams 50 years later when the depth charges had become just a memory.

DicheBach · 03-03-17, 05:35 PM

Fascinating stuff. Thanks guys.

My training is in anthropology, biopsychology type stuff (stress response, addiction that sort of thing). But I've always been fascinated by warfare and conspecific violence in primates more generally.

It is remarkable that in the same war we have the full panoply of human capacity, but then I suppose that is always the case in war, or very often anyway.

I believe those vets who recounted the nightmares. One of the last "extra-curricular" books I read before I retired from academia was about the permanent "psychic trauma" (meaning trauma of the psyche, not telepathy!

) suffered by many soldiers as a result of killing.

Submarine warfare: just about as far outside the human "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" as possible without going into outer space! Amazing era in human history.

propbeanie · 03-03-17, 06:20 PM

Kinda like the Union and Confederate armies playing "Home, Sweet Home" across the river to each other... and then shooting each others eye sockets empty the next day with 50 calibre rifles from 25 yards away... From Wikipedia on the Battle of Stones River

"The armies bivouacked only 700 yards (640 m) from each other, and their bands started a musical battle that became a non-lethal preview of the next day's events. Northern musicians played "Yankee Doodle" and "Hail, Columbia" and were answered by "Dixie" and "The Bonnie Blue Flag." Finally, one band started playing "Home! Sweet Home!" and the others on both sides joined in. Thousands of Northern and Southern soldiers sang the sentimental song together across the lines."

DicheBach · 03-04-17, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by propbeanie

Kinda like the Union and Confederate armies playing "Home, Sweet Home" across the river to each other... and then shooting each others eye sockets empty the next day with 50 calibre rifles from 25 yards away... From Wikipedia on the Battle of Stones River

"The armies bivouacked only 700 yards (640 m) from each other, and their bands started a musical battle that became a non-lethal preview of the next day's events. Northern musicians played "Yankee Doodle" and "Hail, Columbia" and were answered by "Dixie" and "The Bonnie Blue Flag." Finally, one band started playing "Home! Sweet Home!" and the others on both sides joined in. Thousands of Northern and Southern soldiers sang the sentimental song together across the lines."

YUP! That pretty much exactly captures the paradoxical but fascinating nature of it!

03-03-17, 02:14 PM	#2
propbeanie CTD - it's not just a job Join Date: May 2016 Location: One hour from Music City USA! Posts: 9,749 Downloads: 439 Uploads: 2	Doctrine of all the navies was "kill the rotten s.o.b.s", but even some of the Japanese boats would surface and give directions to survivors. However, a lot of them (not just Japanese) also would machine-gun the lifeboats and survivors in the water... Kind of depends upon the skipper and his feelings toward his fellow man... __________________ "...and bollocks to the naysayer/s" - Jimbuna

03-03-17, 06:20 PM	#5
propbeanie CTD - it's not just a job Join Date: May 2016 Location: One hour from Music City USA! Posts: 9,749 Downloads: 439 Uploads: 2	Kinda like the Union and Confederate armies playing "Home, Sweet Home" across the river to each other... and then shooting each others eye sockets empty the next day with 50 calibre rifles from 25 yards away... From Wikipedia on the Battle of Stones River "The armies bivouacked only 700 yards (640 m) from each other, and their bands started a musical battle that became a non-lethal preview of the next day's events. Northern musicians played "Yankee Doodle" and "Hail, Columbia" and were answered by "Dixie" and "The Bonnie Blue Flag." Finally, one band started playing "Home! Sweet Home!" and the others on both sides joined in. Thousands of Northern and Southern soldiers sang the sentimental song together across the lines." __________________ "...and bollocks to the naysayer/s" - Jimbuna

03-03-17, 03:05 PM	#3
JoeSnow Watch Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 21 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	When the war started in 1939, there were international "Rules" that were supposed to be adhered to for submarines. Merchant ships were to be boarded and inspected for contraband cargo and--if such was found--the crews were to be allowed off the ship before it was sunk. Look up Prize Rules for that period. The Germans, for the most part, adhered to these regulations as was practicable and allowed many merchant crews to take to the lifeboats. However, the regulations made it very risky for the submarine crews and the rules were "relaxed" gradually resulting in unrestricted submarine warfare. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the Americans tossed those same rules in the nearest latrine as the Japanese had broken all conventions by attacking before declaring war. The US went immediately to unrestricted warfare and all Axis targets were fired on without warning (except hospital ships). As Propbeanie points out, both sides had some of each behavior. There are very few instances recorded of Germans firing on survivors and they actually tended to be more humanitarian when possible. American skippers were really allowed to act at their own discretion and usually let the survivors tend to themslves. One notable exception for the Americans was Mush Morton in the Wahoo. After sinking a transport he surfaced and the water was full of surviving Japanese. Being close to New Guinea (Japanese controlled) he determined to kill them all. They took to the guns. He put it all in his patrol report and was not rebutted by high command for what he had done. He also was not praised. Hence--by lack of statement--the US command left it to the discretion of the submarine commander. Very few--if any--did what Morton had done. (See Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" for a complete story on this). Having spoken with quite a few WWII subvets, my belief is they felt sorry for the survivors but were really powerless to help them without putting themselves at considerable risk. I believe the Germans felt the same. Probably most all nationalities for that matter. After all, they were all sailors and all knew that it could very easily be them in the water instead of the other guy. One subvet I talked to said the only thing he had bad dreams about was watching the survivors of a burning tanker they had hit trying futily to put out the fire as it drew closer... It still haunted his dreams 50 years later when the depth charges had become just a memory.

03-03-17, 05:35 PM	#4
DicheBach Machinist's Mate Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Atlanta Posts: 128 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	Fascinating stuff. Thanks guys. My training is in anthropology, biopsychology type stuff (stress response, addiction that sort of thing). But I've always been fascinated by warfare and conspecific violence in primates more generally. It is remarkable that in the same war we have the full panoply of human capacity, but then I suppose that is always the case in war, or very often anyway. I believe those vets who recounted the nightmares. One of the last "extra-curricular" books I read before I retired from academia was about the permanent "psychic trauma" (meaning trauma of the psyche, not telepathy! ) suffered by many soldiers as a result of killing. Submarine warfare: just about as far outside the human "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" as possible without going into outer space! Amazing era in human history.