__________________

Hmm. This is interesting as this is the first case I have read where the Americans have murdered POWs. Now I know there have been many cases of such but not documented and not prosecuted. Having a commanding General include such remarks in speeches gives a license and a way out for those who get caught. Is this any different than Hitler's speeches? I see, the only the victors get exconerated.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Hmmmm.

I don't like that!

I guess Patton {whom I have always regarded as hard-headed, but a generals-general nonetheless} should have made clear when taking prisoners was going to be allowed. If you advance under fire, and once the enemy is flanked and exposed to your return fire then throws down his weapon and raises his hands, He is offering his surrender. Nothing says you have to accept such a surrender.

On the other hand, if there is a lull in the actual fighting and during this time the enemy attempts to negotiate a surrender, I believe it would be both wrong and stupid not to accept it. If you offer no chance too surrender, then you are forcing your enemy too fight too the death {and thus increasing the number of your own dead}. If you accept your enemies surrender, and then shoot him {once he is a disarmed prisoner and not a combatant} you have dishonored your country.

Ideally, you would want to let your enemy {and your own troops} know beforehand that once you begin your assault upon their positions, it's going to continue until they drive you back, or you over-run and kill them all. Give them a chance to surrender. If they prefer to die fighting, then let them.

And do not allow anyone that did not do the fighting, bleeding, and dying too sit in 'moral' judgment on those who did.

I never saw combat {only trained for it} but can easily imagine the stress you would be under.

In answer too your question, no. This is the first I heard of this.

well shadow i'm pretty sure the Geneva Convention calls for the good treatment of pow's so yes they were supposed to accept the surrender. although i'm not that naive to think that happened all the time, Pzjgr makes a good point!

__________________
Members of the Dutch Resistance with 101st AB, Eindhoven. Operation Market Garden.

Scott

Your right, sir! I just looked that up and it does indeed specifically state in section II, article 23 that: "To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion". I would hope that this could be amended to include something about actual in-combat surrendering. It would {IMO} be unrealistic too expect that every soldier could refrain from shooting an enemy that had just killed the fellow next too you, suffers a weapon malfunction while trying too shoot you, and then attempts too surrender.

Note that If you Google, it will take you several steps too arrive at this site. This can be found here: The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Thanks for the reply.