Are we tough enough?

[JazzJR]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

I wonder if any kaleuns ignored the order and continued to give aid to survivors of their victims as the war went on?

Seems to be a recurring theme in memoirs of kaluens I have read that they viewed survivors as 'brother seamen' in distress and no longer the enemy.

Reinhard Hardegen did as far as i know, he gave the crew of a ship time to get off the ship and sunk it. As he found a greek Merchant he ordered them to rescue the people of the ship he just had sunk. As the greek ship didn't followed his orders he stopped the ship again, and said he will sink their ship if they doesn't do it.

[STEED]

I was told to kill them all by mowing them down with my AA Guns by Joseph Goebbels on Feb 20th 1943 two days after his Total War Speech.

"I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even yet imagine?"

"Now, folk, rise up, and storm break loose!"

[Gerald]

Yes, we are sufficiently hard, then we are led among sailors,at SS

[Jimbuna]

SINK EM ALL!!

[Canovaro]

BE MORE AGRESSIVE !!

[JazzJR]

Originally Posted by Canovaro

BE MORE AGRESSIVE !!

I once was more agressive and sunk a (neutral) hospital ship and became an renown of -2000.

[Dogfish40]

Originally Posted by K-61

The one that got Doenitz in trouble at the Nuremburg trials was the "Laconia order." For those unfamiliar with it, the Laconia was a British liner carrying British families and Italian P.O.W.'s from the Middle East. Hartenstein sunk it, then attempted to rescue the survivors. He tied up lifeboats to his sub, brought women and children onto the deck and sent an S.O.S. in the clear, asking for assistance and pledging not to attack any Allied units assisting. For his troubles, he was attacked by a B-24 and had to break off the rescue. After that, Doenitz ordered the U-boats not to make any further attempts at assisting survivors. He was acquitted of this charge after it was pointed out that Allied subs operated under essentially the same orders. One American commander, Dudley "Mush" Morton was particularly fond of machinegunning Japanese survivors in the water, for which he would not have been tried had he survived the war.

Yeah, I know that one morning "Mush" woke up and said "Dang, I'm getting bored, Let's get some target practice, I haven't seen enough blood today. Damn the Lifeboats, run'em over and shoot all the survivors..." Sound stupid? In all the books I've read and patrol reports including the Wahoo, I'd like anyone to point out proof that "Mush" was "Fond" of Machine gunning suvivors in the water. In fact, after perusing the Wahoo's patrol reports again, I found several instances of humane treatment of survivors with the inclusion of medical aid, food and course for the nearest port or base. True, many of these were merchants but it doesn't sound like a bloodthirsty boat to me. Out of all the 300 odd US subs that participated in WW2 everyone always comes back to one incident, highly questionable and perpetrated on a sub commander who never got to defend himself or adorn any of his decorations. I have the utmost respect for most of the Skippers and crews of the US and German Subs and before I ever cast any judgement on them, I have to try and put myself in their place. For even a moment, it's an impossibility.
To anyone who wants to read the patrol reports of the US Fleetboats;
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm
Very educational and great reading.
D40

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks for pointing that out, Dogfish40. I somehow missed that when it was posted, and I'd like to add to what you said.

Originally Posted by K-61

One American commander, Dudley "Mush" Morton was particularly fond of machinegunning Japanese survivors in the water, for which he would not have been tried had he survived the war.

It happened once, and Morton claimed he was fired on first. Maybe he was lying, maybe not. I'm not defending Morton, but once hardly equals "particularly fond of". I do agree that he would likely not have been tried, though, and I also agree that is wrong.

[JazzJR]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It happened once, and Morton claimed he was fired on first. Maybe he was lying, maybe not. I'm not defending Morton, but once hardly equals "particularly fond of". I do agree that he would likely not have been tried, though, and I also agree that is wrong.

But i wonder why the german Commander "Eck" was killed for the same reason. It is said that there was no fair hearing, no evidences, nothing. Morton was awarded for this action with the Navy Cross. He never faced a court martial.

Unlike German submariner Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, who was executed as a war criminal for ordering the killing of civilian shipwreck survivors, Morton did not face any criminal liability for his alleged actions. O'Kane believed this event prevented Morton from being awarded the Medal of Honor

He never ordered to kill the people, just to sink the life rafts. So he is not directly "killing" the people, but taking their chance of surviving, not less cruel. But still weird....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JazzJR

But i wonder why the german Commander "Eck" was killed for the same reason. It is said that there was no fair hearing, no evidences, nothing. Morton was awarded for this action with the Navy Cross. He never faced a court martial.

Morton didn't live to face court martial. Would he have? I doubt it. You're right, there is a double standard here, and it does hinge on who won the war. Was Eck's trial unfair? I don't know.

[Dogfish40]

Originally Posted by JazzJR

But i wonder why the german Commander "Eck" was killed for the same reason. It is said that there was no fair hearing, no evidences, nothing. Morton was awarded for this action with the Navy Cross. He never faced a court martial.



He never ordered to kill the people, just to sink the life rafts. So he is not directly "killing" the people, but taking their chance of surviving, not less cruel. But still weird....

I'm not defending all the trials ect that happened after the war. There were many many instances of perhaps unfair treatment of German Personnel after the war. There were a lot of people tried for simply doing what they said were orders and whatnot. After the War, this was an unfortunate after-effect of feelings that started from WW1. Were all of the people convicted of war crimes in WW2 truly guilty? Of course not, especially by today's standards. As for Eck, I have to agree that his actions were really stupid, for one, you can't sink wood!! How did he expect to get rid of the evidence of a sunken ship in time to hide from the enemy searching for him. He had to know he wouldn't be able to sink all the lifeboats completely. The survivors (the few rescued) said they grabbed ahold of floating debris part of which were lifeboats. The Morale of Eck's command plummeted and never truly recoverd from this, which also proves that these men we're not bloodthirsty monsters. I don't know what Eck was thinking when he gave his order and I'm not really trying to prove otherwise. My point was that Commander Morton was not "Fond" of machinegunning survivors and he was one courageous SOB.
I did read the story of Eck's command again on U-Boat.net and it's very very interesting.
Cheers and Good Hunting.
D40

[Gerald]

[JazzJR]

Originally Posted by Vendor

*snip*

Neutral Ships that will give evil renown

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by JazzJR

Neutral Ships that will give evil renown

You're looking at the wrong number, the "Allied units lost," is it,

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Morton didn't live to face court martial. Would he have? I doubt it. You're right, there is a double standard here, and it does hinge on who won the war. Was Eck's trial unfair? I don't know.

Agreed