I understand the thought process of not shooting an enemy in the back, but the reality is that retreat is not surrender. Retreat is often characterized as a strategic withdrawal. The common soldiers did not know when the war was going to end. News was often conflicting or non-existent. So unless the other guy is surrendering, he is still an enemy.
Even surrender is not always surrender. There were more than a few instances of soldiers, especially in the Pacific, who came out under white flags with grenades or guns looking to take down a few conquerors with them.
Add to all of that the fact that the German and Russians fought a brutal war against one another. There was often no quarter given and none accepted. There was a good chance that capture meant death so soldiers fought desperately.
Crimes happened on all sides, they always do. But in some cases those crimes were common, in others they were the anomaly. We all know of instances like the Rape of Nanking where such "crimes" were the policy. However, to show all sides being equal, people like to focus on other incidents committed by one or a small number of soldiers. All things were not, in fact, equal.
Just think about it this way: you are an enemy soldier in WWII, to which countries would you rather surrender? We know who treated their prisoners "well" and who treated them brutally as policy, don't we?
Some of it depends on which country you were fighting for. Germany tended to treat British and American prisoners reasonably well and vice versa. Then again, there seemed to be a special hatred between German and Russian troops and neither side had a good track record of treating the other's prisoners very well.
Splitter
|
10-14-2010, 03:57 PM
Threaded Mode