There were incidents of American pow's on jap ships getting torpedoed also. They would often put pow's on ships to use as sort of a shield or deterrent.. They would also put pow camps next to targets that they hope wouldn't get bombed. After the Americans took a beating during the Battle of Savo Island and what happened at Guadalcanal it was pretty much gloves off. The japanese started the atrocities. They ended getting payed back in spades. When the U.S.S. Wahoo sunk a jap troop ship they later pulled up and sunk the lifeboats with their 4" gun and then machine gunned the survivors in the water. That was a common thing the japanese did to allied survivors in the water. Some tried to make an issue of it. But the senior admiral didn't have a problem with it. He made some comment about better to kill them in water than have them swim to shore and kill our marines. It was brutal war, a fight to the death. Terrible things happened. But in the end the japanese learned, play stupid games win stupid prizes.Haven't there been several queries - even accusations - that the Captain and a couple of Officers on board the USS Sturgeon were not entirely unaware of the presence of POWs and civilians on board the Montevideo Maru? I recall reading a few articles and seeing at least one TV documentary (I have a feeling it was an Australian-British one) about it in the past and there were certainly questions asked. The Sturgeon had the Japanese ship in its sights for quite a long time before firing torpedoes and there has been speculation that the hesitant submarine Captain received "secondary" orders to open fire.
In the few months following the strategic American victory at Midway, there was this 'push' by the US Navy to hold on to and extend their advantage over their Imperial Japanese enemies in the Indo-Pacific theatre. I wonder if the "collateral damage" would have been as "acceptable" had the POWs been Americans instead of Australians.
I don't doubt that for a single moment. I have had British patients in the 1980s and 90s who had fought against both the Germans and Japanese and almost invariably swore that the ordinary Wehrmacht soldier was far better than the 'average' Japanese one.The Japanese started the atrocities.
Haven't there been several queries - even accusations - that the Captain and a couple of Officers on board the USS Sturgeon were not entirely unaware of the presence of POWs and civilians on board the Montevideo Maru?
The Sturgeon had the Japanese ship in its sights for quite a long time before firing torpedoes and there has been speculation that the hesitant submarine Captain received "secondary" orders to open fire.
In the few months following the strategic American victory at Midway, there was this 'push' by the US Navy to hold on to and extend their advantage over their Imperial Japanese enemies in the Indo-Pacific theatre. I wonder if the "collateral damage" would have been as "acceptable" had the POWs been Americans instead of Australians.
When the U.S.S. Wahoo sunk a jap troop ship they later pulled up and sunk the lifeboats with their 4" gun and then machine gunned the survivors in the water. That was a common thing the japanese did to allied survivors in the water.
Some tried to make an issue of it. But the senior admiral didn't have a problem with it. He made some comment about better to kill them in water than have them swim to shore and kill our marines.
I don't know. As I said, I have seen an old Australian-British TV documentary about the Montevideo Maru incident but don't recall all the details. The two things that were highlighted were that the American authorities were not unaware that the MM was carrying POWs and civilians - probably though wartime intelligence information. The documentary did NOT portray Commander Wright as a villain - quite the contrary in fact. The belief was that he did not want to fire on the MM as that ship in itself did not pose a direct military threat but it being July 1942, the US Navy were going all out to push home the advantage they had gained after Midway in the Pacific theater.How would they be able to know?
The two things that were highlighted were that the American authorities were not unaware that the MM was carrying POWs and civilians - probably though wartime intelligence information.
9 June 1942:
Arrives at Rabaul, New Britain. Disembarks troops and unloads cargo.
21 June 1942:
Embarks 27 guards. Loads one aircraft fuselage, 10 cars and related spare parts.
22 June 1942:
Embarks 1,157 POWs and civilian internees. Departs Rabaul for Samah, Hainan Island without escort.
30 June 1942:
Off northern Philippines. LtCdr William L. Wright’s (USNA ’25) USS Sturgeon (SS-187) running on surface, sights the transport steaming at about 17 knots, too fast for the submarine to approach. Wright decides to pursue MONTEVIDEO MARU.
1 July 1942:
About midnight, MONTEVIDEO MARU’s speed slows to 12 knots as she expects to meet with two destroyers en route to join her as escorts. At 65 miles W of Cape Bojeador, Luzon, about 0326, Wright, unaware of the POWs and civilians aboard, fires a spread of four torpedoes. Two hits are scored on the No. 4 heavy oil tank hold, on starboard. At 0337, MONTEVIDEO MARU sinks by the stern at 18-35N, 120-25E, with the loss of nine crewmen, 11 guards and all POWs and civilian internees.
2 July 1942:
About 70 Japanese survivors in two lifeboats land near Cape Bojeador.
3 July 1942:
The survivors arrive at Bobon Village. Then, guided by a native, they head for a Japanese outpost located at Laoag.
4 July 1942:
Morning. The survivors are attacked by natives and scatter, sustaining heavy casualties with 55 KIA.
5 July 1942:
One survivor arrives at Laoag.
20 July 1942:
Removed from the Navy’s list under instruction No. 1331.
25 July 1942:
A Japanese rescue party recovers a total of 25 exhausted and starving survivors.
I have read about this and sometimes compared it with the less "intensive" treatment of the captured German soldiers when the British-Canadian troops liberated Bergen-Belsen. There of course, spreading typhus was a far bigger immediate concern with both sides and it took its toll.When the U.S. troops first liberated Dachau they were so upset by what they saw the lined up many of the nazi guards against a wall and gunned them down. The rest they took to the courtyard and turned them over to the former inmates who promptly dispatch them in a most brutal manner.
Absolutely true. It was quite literally a military version of "dog eat dog".I think it would have been almost impossible to bring any charges against the things going on at that time.
Yes Arun you are correct. These things weren't limited to the last 2 world wars. There as old as war itself. In American schools when I grew up they always taught a sanitized version of history with the exception of covering the holocaust. Even the 20 or so history classes I took in college it was pretty much the same thing with a few exceptions. Things that went on during the american revolution and the civil war were pretty grusome. But those things were mostly carried out by rouge groups and not sanctioned by the main armies. Sadly it hasn't stopped. Isis in the middle east are still doing things on par or worse with anything that has happened before.I have read about this and sometimes compared it with the less "intensive" treatment of the captured German soldiers when the British-Canadian troops liberated Bergen-Belsen. There of course, spreading typhus was a far bigger immediate concern with both sides and it took its toll.
Not sure specifically of Dachau but there have been doubts expressed whether many of the Germans left to guard the prisoners of soon-to-be liberated concentration camps were really "Nazis". Certainly, in the areas of (what is now) Belarus and Poland, most SS guards and other Nazi staff fled before the advancing Russians arrived, leaving behind skeleton staff as guards, often made-up with cooks, cleaners etc pulled out of the Wehrmacht. Of course, considering the atrocities that they had faced themselves at the hands of the Nazis over the past 3 and a half years, the Russians were out for revenge and did not really care who was really wearing the German uniform in front of them.
Absolutely true. It was quite literally a military version of "dog eat dog".
We human beings are not as discerning as we like to think and with sufficient provocation can resort to the sort of bestiality that no animal ever would. Several unspeakable things happened during the two World Wars and not all atrocities of WW2 were perpetrated by the Germans and the Japanese; two examples are the terrible Volyn Massacre of 1943 which almost certainly included Titanic survivor Rosa Pinsky as one of the victims and of course, the better known Katyn Forest Massacre a few years earlier. Even the so-called "civilized" countries are not immune; you probably know about the infamous Jalianwalla Bagh massacre of mostly women and children by the British in 1919 or the "revenge" murder of innocent Sikhs following the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984.
the terrible Volyn Massacre of 1943 which almost certainly included Titanic survivor Rosa Pinsky as one of the victims
It is. I found it gut-churning and had to stop reading the article after a while.That's beyond awful, by far the worst fate to befall a Titanic survivor that I know of.
Neither did I, as a matter of fact. I lost touch with Nicolay, my Russian contact about Rosa Pinsky somewhere in late 2020. At the time he had told me that he and his Israeli contact Moshe Krumann were trying to get more information but never got back to me. I think it's time I tried again.I know Arun researched Rosa Pinsky. I tried also but didn't find anything more than Arun did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?