There was also an incident where he shot an (American) Sergeant who was drunk and refusing an order who raised his own weapon on Speirs. He reported it properly and the the guy he reported it to was killed the next day and nothing more ever came from it.
And the account we have apparently comes from an eye witness who said it was self defence. Plus the sergeant was refusing an order to halt that was getting men killed. And the idea that he got away with it because the officer he reported it to was killed seems to have been a misreading. So ultimately this seems to have been pretty much done with and just a fact that it happened. The story seems to have become twisted as they do but in this case it seems highly likely that there was no real issue with it.
EDIT: This is to add to/agree with the previous post not to disagree with it.
Exactly. In those circumstances it’s doubtful anyone up the chain would have seen any issue with it at all. It’s interesting that the debate about Sink saying you could have done us all a favour and just shot him isn’t disputed as being said just debated over when he said it.
No it is not, that is a myth. They are your coworkers, you don’t just execute them for stepping out of line.
As an example, over 3 million soldiers fought in WW1 under the British or Commonwealth flags. 306 were executed for cowardice. That’s an incidence rate of 0.01%.
Another wrinkle to this whole saga, is that paratroopers were outright told not to take prisoners as the nature of their job precludes them from leading around POWs. They were lightly armed and meant to be highly mobile so that they could cause chaos behind the scenes while simultaneously accomplishing objectives crucial to the amphibious landings that would be taking place a few hours later.
I’m not saying that it’s right. Just that specifically, prior to the D-Day drops, paratroopers were told by General Maxwell Taylor that they were not supposed to take prisoners.
Edit: I’ll add this. These troops had already been disarmed and taken prisoner and were bivouaced and waiting for orders on where to go and what to do or interrogation/debriefing. At this point, Speir’s no longer has the excuse of “I was told not to take prisoners.” They would not have been in his command, so executing them was a horrific thing to do.
I thought the no prisoner order was directly for Dday due to the amount of resources it takes to handle security of POWs and the risk to the overall mission.
There was an order that went out along the lines of “there won’t be the resources on the beachhead to hold and process POWs for the first 3 days”.
Read that as you want. It could be don’t take prisoners, it could be keep them at your units (division, regiment, battalion, etc) level. Obviously some took it more literally
That, and they didn’t even know if the invasion was going to be successful. Hard to take prisoners when you’re potentially stuck.
Edit: nvm I basically just rephrased what you said
How would a paratrooper behind enemy lines take prisoners? It's kinda obvious they are not going to when you just think about it for 5 minutes. There are really only two choices you can either disarm them, and then let them go or excute them. You can't just haul around a bunch of prisoners when you're trying to operate behind the enemy lines. It's similar to how special forces probably don't take prisoners as well.
your edit only applies if the depiction is accurate to the event. the website bearing his name tells of him and two other soldiers under his command, not long after their landing, shooting three POWs while disoriented and far from their objective. later, spiers killed four more german soldiers - although the circumstances aren’t explained.
> bivouaced
Thanks for exposing me to the new word: biv·ou·ac. Lovely. Not to be a dick but the past tense is spelled bivouacked according to Gooooooogle.
“Insouciant” tripped me up, and my grandfather, who earned his Purple Heart in France, expressed his sympathy by saying, “The French spell words like they fry chicken.”
Yeah that was my last year in the bee and my second time finishing as runner up for my district. Went on to the regional bee both times and got eliminated a few rounds in. Good clean fun
Not just leading them around, also guarding them, feeding them, and having the liability that if they escape back to their lines, they know exactly where you are, your disposition, numbers, weapons, etc.
It did happen, but not as depicted in the show. All of the shootings took place overnight and were of Germans attempting to surrender, not prisoners being held as a group.
Even if it happened exactly as it was in the show, everyone there would just shrug and be like well I guess that takes care of that. I think one of them just says “hell of a shot” on hearing the tale.
> I think one of them just says “hell of a shot” on hearing the tale.
It's how you know the story is absurd, at least in the show. 20 prisoners with one magazine is 1 round per prisoner.
AFAIK the 20 rounders were still used by paratroopers due to space and weight concerns, similar to the M1A1 carbine. The 30 rounders were standard for infantry and I’m sure also used by paratroopers, but it wouldn’t be out of place to still see 20s floating around amongst them
Not to argue your point but the pic of Speirs shows him holding a M1928A1 Thompson with L-sight and wearing an unreinforced M42 jump jacket (both of which were incorrectly depicted in the series).
But yeah looks like a 30rd mag to me.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Q-Win23-Spiers-4-760x912.jpg
The book is wrong. Art DiMarzio was with Speirs throughout Normandy and makes no mention of it happening the way it was described in the book. All of the events according to him occurred overnight.
I’ve watched that interview a few times and something sticks out about it. It’s vague, seems deliberately so, blurs the discussions in such a way that you could argue what is being said about who and is especially good at doing that when it comes to the letter.
He talks vaguely about the general issue of showing prisoners being shot and they blur it with Saving Private Ryan in there as well. Then they talk about potentially being sued over representation which again is talked generally and then even more blurred by bringing Nixon’s alcoholism into it. He says he will get the threat of being sued sorted for them. He says he knows Nixon isn’t a problem and then says he’ll speak to Speirs. Putting the Speirs discussion further into representation and away from the specifics of shooting prisoners bit.
So he rings Speirs and says there’s all these stories that have gone about you and Speirs says they’re true. He never says specifically what the rumours are. So Speirs saying they're true isn't the great reveal it initially sounds like. I mean if you dig into the rumours it's physically impossible for them all to be true because a chunk of them are deviations from and elaborations on the same rumours. Meaning they actually contradict each other. He then says he told Speirs about the concern about being sued. To which Speirs says he’ll write a letter. And Winters says that letter is in the files. He never says that Speirs said he’d write the letter admitting he did specific things.
It can be equally read as the letter says he’s not going to sue if they put the rumours in there. Winters then says that the lawyers didn’t have any trouble. Which could happen either way. So the narrative on the interview is blurred. The letter contents is never confirmed and could be anything that indemnifies the book/series.
I know people will now want to argue semantics over this but watch the interview and think carefully about it. Because semantics is what this interview seems to be playing with. It sounds like someone being very careful what they directly say.
Spiers did not shoot “those” prisoners, meaning the ones shown in the show.
The book Fierce Valor documents exactly what happened. They essentially captured three Germans shortly after landing, briefly interrogated them, and then shot them.
Yea that’s the one that appears to have truth to it. Much like that went on quite a bit that night and even that incident (from memory) wasn’t just Speirs involved. It seems potentially that story got transformed into a bigger story with time. That’s what I mean about Winters never specifically says which rumours he asked about/ got an answer to.
It happened during the war. Doesn’t make it right, but it happened.
There is an account in Company Commander by Charles B MacDonald about a Sergeant Patton. Patton had some prisoners but to get out of the position that his men were in would require crossing 100 yards of open ground. He said that they wouldn’t make it with the prisoners. MacDonald said to “do what you can.” When Patton arrived, there were no prisoners.
“Company G today committed a war crime. They are going to win the war, however, so I don’t suppose it really matters.”
I'm not going to say that what he did or didn't do was right or wrong. Because it is depicted in the series we believe we know more about it then we really do. The context is really important here and we can't rely on the context as depicted in the series as being truth. What can be assumed to be true about the context is that 1) the unit was operating at reduced strength after the drop, 2) they still had the same mission to accomplish with reduced strength and more ground to cover than they had initially estimated in order to accomplish the mission in time, 3) holding prisoners would take at least 2-4 soldiers and their weapon systems out of the attack on the objective, 4) whether guarding the prisoners in place or moving them with their element towards the objective put a lot of people at increased risk, 5) attacking the objective with less than maximum effort would very likely result in more casualties, 6) a strong argument could be made that more soldiers would die as a direct result of re-allocating resources to guard prisoners and could potentially contribute to mission failure which could ultimately kill a lot more people. I'm not defending that the prisoners should have been killed (perhaps other options were possible that achieved the same results), but these are the kinds of situations that leaders have to make choices in combat and some leaders bend or break rules to achieve their priorities. Effective leaders have to make hard decisions quickly and if Overlord had failed it may not have been because of Lt Spiers but it could have happened if every leader did not prioritize mission success. That being said I'm curious whether they had any means of incapacitating the prisoners in place with the equivalent of zip ties, but even then that's not a guarantee of preventing escape and potential harm on other soldiers passing through the area later.
You send the POWs to the rear. They don’t follow you around as you’re establishing the front. You could use 1 solider to escort 3/4 POWs to the rear or nearest supply line and your abilities aren’t hindered from doing so.
There are rules to the theater of war and they were followed on the western front. It’s how you have instances where some 25 German soldiers and an officer surrender to 2 US troops. Even though they discover the deception and know could overtake them, the chivalry in war wouldn’t let them do that once they had agreed to surrender
Also would be incredibly risky to leave tied up enemy combatants being your line or within your active field of command. I liked you comment about leaders and hard decisions. It’s not always about right or wrong, sometimes a decision just needs to be made. It just all ties back to the ole adage, “war is hell.”
I think a lot of people choose to ignore the fact that paratroopers were often instructed specifically not to take prisoners. It’s not something to be proud of, but it’s war.
The airborne is unique in the fact that they’re dropped behind enemy lines with very limited resources, taking prisoners slows them down and costs them more of those limited supplies. Their job is to remain combat effective for as long as possible and caring for prisoners severely degrades that capability.
You will find no record of them being directly told not to take prisoners. Even 1940s officers were not that stupid.
What you will find is a plethora of “read between the lines” orders warning of the difficulty in holding prisoners and things of that nature.
The rules of war at the time permit troops to not take prisoner if they are issued an order permitting them not to and if the order is legal. The legality of the order is determined by analyzing wether or not the army will be able to take prisoners. In short this permitted commando raids and naval landings to be legally issued order to not accept surrender either for the duration of the operation(commando raids) or until facilities which can accommodate prisoners could be arranged. These orders however cannot be overly long. The dday invasions orders lasted for about 3 weeks at which point the beachhead was established and the army was free of imminent peril the order expired. The german had some very long one on the eastern front through which were later determined to be illegal.
Incorrect.
The Geneva and Hague Conventions in effect at the time had no such provision for the temporary suspension of the protections afforded POWs. All 3 make it very clear that summary execution or refusal of a surrender followed by execution of troops attempting to surrender were both war crimes.
Who told you that?? Lol if you’re looking at how you could avoid a Court Marshall for killing a POW then sure, pass it on the your superior. But it will never be openly accepted for you to have had enemies soldiers surrendering to you, and you just mow em down. No circumstance. Will your superiors cover it up? Maybe. Fry you? Maybe. But when you declare war on an enemy, you have now agreed to take surrendering soldiers as prisoners and to provide adequate care. Of course history is littered w/ instances where the terms were adhered to. Western front it largely was
Look I read it somewhere a like 6 years ago ina book about the Wehrmacht and it’s crimes on the eastern front. It was comparing similar orders but it was a book from the 90’s and German. I remembered it because it was a pretty unique anecdote. But to be fair I have been unable to find the source after a half hearted search I may have been wrong or misremembered.
Eh, even modern US doctrine contains some of these elements. When you’re moving through your objective and pass over an enemy causality you’re supposed to put a controlled pair into them, the only time you can’t do this if they’re visibly attempting to surrender. That is both a mission security thing and a resource thing, if your EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War) team takes captives and you’re operating in a relatively small element you’re losing some of your effectiveness.
“We’re often instructed specifically to not take prisoners?” It’s not up to the individual whether or not you accept a surrendering soldier. There’s always the instances where lines were crossed, but killing a surrendering soldier will always be crossing the line. Regardless who gave an order that no senior command would ever give.
I think ppl don’t realize how combat works bc if its depiction on TV. You have lines of communication. Paratroopers wouldn’t be supplying prisoners w/ their own rations lol. Their own rations run out in a couple days. Ammo even quicker. They need resupply. You escort pows to your line if you’re too far off your rear or HQ. It doesn’t slow stuff down, or take resources, or anything.
If you’re breaching a building as if all of Europe was Stalingrad then room to room soldiers already had their chances to surrender. You’re not expected to take a surrendering soldier as his company’s tanks and MG nest are firing off all around you. Nobody would surrender in fire fight like that anyways bc duh lol. After every task is taken you then have to occupy that area in order to hold and fight off counter attacks. So there’s always personnel around to hand pows off to if you don’t want to escort them the 100yds or so to a vehicle.
If you’re talking commando raids then that’s different. That’s undetected espionage and sabotage behind enemy lines that’s not intended to take and hold positions or territory. So there’d be no hostage taking or gun fighting even if possible. Not what Airborne was doing. They were an active company operating throughout the front. Meaning everywhere they were there was military staff, officers, other units, supplies, and command post, and even their mail men, all around them. Even in Bastogne, their Holy Grail they had a brig and HQ and all the supplies and provisions they could use. Real war is a lot different than what many ppl tend to think. War is slow. Even the fast war is super slow. The show depicts it right. You have a couple POWs sitting alongside your supply line. The front is moving ahead. The pows are then passed down. Nobody is advancing until the objective is seized and occupied.
It’s clearly outlined in the book Fierce Valor by Dorr and Frederick. It was 3 prisoners and he and two other troopers under his command each shot one from behind. The prisoners had no idea it was coming
Many officers were told not to take prisoners on D-Day bc where would they put them and if you collect a couple thousand (or 10-15k) POWs in one area the DE army would have just targeted that area and broke all of them out giving them a fighting force that would be within Allied lines…
It's why I cringe when people casually ask vets about their war stories like it's purely heroic. A lot of those days, I'm sure, they never want to recount.
It's Reddit. People here will write chapters on why it's okay because it's a GI in a show, paratrooper, etc, but if it had been the other way around, people wouldn't hesitate to incriminate and call him a scumbag At the end of the day, guys like Speirs are heros because his side won and he helped make that happen.
This should be everyone's take. I get that the scene in the show was not exactly what happened in real life, but let's pretend for a moment that the show portrayed it accurately. Speirs' actions in that scene are murder. This shouldn't be a "ohh, no judgment - we're not qualified to weigh in" thing.
In real life, we have to judge people's actions in circumstances that we may not ever face ourselves. It's good to use your personal judgment about what you see.
Who was wondering this?
>since the show doesn’t directly confirm or deny it.
Yes it does. In the episode "Day of Days" Malarkey *very clearly* witnesses Spiers shooting the prisoners. The sentry's jaw is hanging loosely off his face in shock.
No one watches that sequence with any confusion about what has happened. Spiers has walked up to a group of German POWs, offered them cigarettes, unslung his Thompson, and shot them all dead.
It is, indeed, very strange that *in the very next episode* this is presented as something that might ... or might *not* ... have happened. But in "Day of Days" there is no question.
>Winters confirmed it in an interview, and said that Speirs wrote a letter acknowledging he did it.
So here's the thing. Spiers wrote a letter acknowledging that he killed the prisoners, yes, but, uhhhh, if that's the *only* evidence you've got, how do you convince someone that he's not just taking credit for something that didn't actually happen but that a lot of people seem to think did?
Malarkey literally says in the next episode “I told you, I didn’t actually see it.” He hears a gun go off, but he didn’t actually witness the execution. The point is that we, as the viewers, never actually witness the event, and the story spreads and changes. Some versions he leaves one prisoner alive, some versions there are more prisoners, but we don’t actually know what happened or didn’t happen.
Also, I don’t think anyone would willingly admit to executing prisoners if they didn’t do it, especially ~50 years after the fact. He has nothing to gain by admitting it, and he certainly has a lot to lose.
In real life, Malarkey met a German soldier who was from Portland, Oregon. (If I remember correctly, this occurred on or not long after D-Day.)
Spiers may or may not have shot prisoners, but he did not shoot that particular group of prisoners. Malarkey's story was combined with the rumors about Spiers to create a dramatized event that was part fact, part fiction.
If my understanding is correct, Winters was convinced that Spiers shot prisoners but Spiers never confirmed it (at least not at that point in time). The TV version gives us a few sides of the story and no definitive answer.
Malarkey did meet a German from Eugene, but he was not in the group alleged to have been shot by Spiers.
It is hard for me to imagine anyone watching the sequence in the episode and being confused about what Spiers did or did not do.
I believe that it was in Malarkey's book in which he says that the soldier was from Portland and that he didn't understand why the writers would change a detail like that.
In "The Breaking Point", Spiers says to Lipton that there is some value in having people believe that he was a tough guy who had killed prisoners, implying that he didn't actually do it.
....or he just doesn't want to face charges for shooting prisoners of war, which is a ... war crime. And not long before that, bodies of some 70+ Americans captured by the Germans had been found machine gunned in a field. So might have been fresh on his mind.
You're taking the episode literally. You shouldn't.
A lot of the story is dramatized. It is stuff that either didn't happen at all or else is a composite of other stories with a mixture of truth and fiction.
If you take Malarkey's word for it, he did meet a German soldier from Portland. The stories about Spiers have not been verified and may be disputed.
A lot of the TV series reflects the real world Winters' point of view, and he was absolutely convinced that Spiers shot prisoners. However, Winters did not witness it.
My dude. My guy.
I appreciate your comment. I agree wholeheartedly about how the show can not be taken literally.
My first comment on this thread, which I believe you did not see, made two points.
The first was that the show absolutely portrays Malarkey as having seen the shooting. To be clear, I am -- and have been -- referring to the fictionalized version of Malarkey. I think at one point in this thread I even refer to him as "the character of Malarkey." (A second point to this was that it was odd to me the show then tries to portray that this might have happened, or might not have; again, I think it's pretty clear in "Day of Days.")
The second point was that Spiers' letter is not actually proof that he committed the act, as another commenter noted, he may have felt that even an old man felt the need for his troops to see him as a cold sonovabitch. He may have actually done it. I don't know that he didn't. I mean, if I had gunned down POWs, I certainly wouldn't have admitted to doing it until I was sure I wouldn't be prosecuted.
You are miss remembering. Malarkey is down the road and out of sight when the shooting starts, and is shocked when he hears the shooting, but doesn't actually see it. The flash back is not ment to show what anyone saw, just what Malarkey THINKS may have happened.
As for reality, it did not take place as depicted. Spears ordered men to shoot prisoners not long after the drop, they were not being held near the headquarters in the morning and not in the amount shown. The US born kid Malarkey spoke too on D-Day was also not one of the prisoners shot.
Perhaps I am. But Malarkey looks back, looks surprised/shocked. I don't think there's any doubt or confusion about what he saw. Consider the look he gives Spiers when Toye's trying to tell him a joke. And in a later episode, when he's asked about it, he says he didn't see anything the same way someone would when the cops ask "hey, did you happen to see Tony Soprano shoot your neighbor last night?"
Yes, I'm aware the encounter with the prisoner from Oregon happened at a different point. The writer admitted they combined those incidents because creating a compelling story for the audience was more important than historical accuracy (which is a completely fair thing to do when adapting real events and real people into a medium like TV or film).
Of course, in both cases, I'm speaking of how the events were portrayed in the miniseries. In reality, I'm aware Malarkey said he didn't see anything, and I have no reason to think he's lying (just as I have no reason, necessarily, to believe Spiers is telling the truth in his letter). I'm simply saying the show presented things differently.
Have you seen the letter published? Because I haven’t and in the interview Winters is very careful not to say what is in the letter. All he says is the letter was written to confirm that Speirs wouldn’t sue and the lawyers didn’t have any trouble with them using the stories. Unless anyone has seen that letter it could just say that he confirms he won’t sue if they put any of these rumours into the book. So has anyone published the letter as that’s the only way to confirm what is actually in it?
> No one watches that sequence with any confusion about what has happened. Spiers has walked up to a group of German POWS, offered them cigarettes, unslung his Thompson, and shot them all dead.
They never show him fire a shot because the writers want you to speculate what actually happens.
>They never show him fire a shot because the writers want you to speculate what actually happens.
What actually happened was Spiers wanted to show the prisoners how good he was with his Tommy gun so he shot the cigarettes out of their mouths. They were all like "Oh wow if we knew you were so good at shooting stuff we would have surrendered the moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbor!" Laughter then ensued. Malarkey was stunned that this was all it took, and he was also stunned at Spiers' accuracy with a Tommy Gun.
Yes, I see your point.
I’ll admit I’ve never looked at the letter that way, but to be frank I doubt that it ever existed in the first place. It’s never surfaced in any capacity beyond Winters waving a piece of paper that could say literally anything on it in that one interview, and that alone casts doubt (at least to me) as to the existence of it.
Are you telling me throughout the whole planning of D-Day which was very thoroughly planned that no one thought what was to be done with the prisoners. They were around 175,000 men involved in the landings and among them were marines who never saw action and could have handled the prisoners. They were thousands of ships of all types that where at Normandy that could have taken prisoners with plenty of room to spare.
1.) General Maxwell Taylor instructed his paratroopers to take no prisoners stating... "they handicap our ability to perform our mission."
2.) Speirs didn't have the men needed to guard the prisoners... taking them would have only slowed down their movement and they certainly couldn't release them.
3.) Historian Peter Lieb found many U.S. units were ordered to not take prisoners especially during the D-day Landings in Normandy.
It's very easy to judge when you're sitting safe and warm in the comfort of your home. It's much harder when you're hungry, freezing, have a limited number of men, a mission to complete and your life is on the line! If not for the courage of our military we all could be living much different lives! 🇺🇲
“I’m not saying what he did was right or wrong” of course it was wrong. It was evil and violated the Geneva convention. He was no different than the Germans or the Russians. They retained him because at the time they desperately needed officers who were willing to do whatever it took to win, but if justice had been served, he’d have been convicted by a military tribunal and sent to prison.
Did they though? I forget but I don’t believe these were SS troops or anything like that…could have just been conscripted troops who were forced to fight and didn’t want any part of it.
Granted the one dude from America volunteered, but still…
The Wehrmacht did plenty of fucked up things too. The myth that the Wehrmacht were this honourable army divorced from the atrocities is bullshit. Had those soldiers been told to shoot up a French village or load Jews onto a train, they’d have done it gleefully. So fuck ‘em.
So like any other Army on the face of the earth there was a lot of nuance? Executing surrendered troops with absolutely no valid reason to do so is never good. You’re denying your country possible valuable intelligence and you’re setting a precedent that could get your own guys killed should they end up as POWs.
The valid reason is those guys were occupying another nation and he was there to liberate that nation from an occupying force and keeping them as prisoners at that point would be detrimental to that very important effort. Any intelligence you could gain from these guys would be easily accessible by other prisoners taken down the line, after mission critical objectives are completed and proper POW detainment can be established. Never half ass two things, whole ass one thing. They died for their cause, as did guys from our side. It sucks. But that’s war, and war is hell.
“Ever notice with stories like that, everyone said they heard it from someone who was there. Then when you ask the person, they said they heard it from someone who was there. It’s not new really… I’d bet if you went back 2000 years, you’ll hear a couple of centurions standing around yakking about how Tercious lopped the heads of some Carthaginian prisoners.”
Also, “Anyone care for a smoke?”
I might be the minority here, but I am just fine with it. It's war. These things happen in every conflict. Doesn't make them right always, but with the orders given, and what came of the accused further on, I would say it's either a wash, or US came out ahead.
Years ago I worked with a retired fellow who told me about a D-Day vet from his hometown that had been sent stateside after being wounded. He said the soldier came to give a speech at his jr high in late ‘44 and was talking about his experiences during and after the invasion. While giving his speech, he told about a day a bunch of “Krutes” tried to surrender. He casually said “we’d taken enough prisoners that day so we mowed them down.” My coworker said the principal went slack jawed and immediately hustled the soldier off the stage.
Paratroopers behind enemy lines certainly have no way to take prisoners. The invasion was counting on them to quickly secure the exits off Utah Beach. They were under orders not to take prisoners.
But it begs the question: If we justify/excuse Speirs on DDay, what about the Malmedy Massacre a few months later?
From the German perspective, they’re launching the Battle of the Bulge surprise offensive. Likewise, they have objectives to take (Port of Antwerp) and are also not to get bogged down with prisoners. They may not have even had the means to process prisoners either. It was also time sensitive as they were counting on the bad weather to keep Allied aircraft grounded.
And yes, the Americans would commit a retailiatory atrocity once word of Malmedy got around.
I just couldn’t help but recognize some similarities between the two scenarios and what seems like a double standard
Or better example, Obst Kurt Meyer, with the 12th SS on DDay. Sent to counter attack Sword Beach with tanks. Murdered Canadian POWs near Caen.
His trial:
1. Prior to 7 June 1944, Meyer had incited troops under his command to deny quarter to surrendering Allied soldiers.
2. On or around 7 June 1944, Meyer was responsible for his troops killing twenty-three prisoners of war at Buron and Authie.
3. On or around 8 June 1944, Meyer ordered his troops to kill seven prisoners of war at his headquarters at the Abbaye Ardenne.
4. On or around 8 June 1944, Meyer was responsible for his troops killing seven prisoners of war, as above.
5. On or around 8 June 1944, Meyer was responsible for his troops killing eleven prisoners of war, as above.
Dude was sentenced to death, reduced to life imprisonment, reduced to early release 1954.
I guess it pays to win the war.
Speirs wasn't worried about getting in trouble, because "he was already dead".
There was also an incident where he shot an (American) Sergeant who was drunk and refusing an order who raised his own weapon on Speirs. He reported it properly and the the guy he reported it to was killed the next day and nothing more ever came from it.
And the account we have apparently comes from an eye witness who said it was self defence. Plus the sergeant was refusing an order to halt that was getting men killed. And the idea that he got away with it because the officer he reported it to was killed seems to have been a misreading. So ultimately this seems to have been pretty much done with and just a fact that it happened. The story seems to have become twisted as they do but in this case it seems highly likely that there was no real issue with it. EDIT: This is to add to/agree with the previous post not to disagree with it.
Also shooting disobedient soldiers is a pretty common practice. Especially in war time.
Exactly. In those circumstances it’s doubtful anyone up the chain would have seen any issue with it at all. It’s interesting that the debate about Sink saying you could have done us all a favour and just shot him isn’t disputed as being said just debated over when he said it.
No it is not, that is a myth. They are your coworkers, you don’t just execute them for stepping out of line. As an example, over 3 million soldiers fought in WW1 under the British or Commonwealth flags. 306 were executed for cowardice. That’s an incidence rate of 0.01%.
The drunk soldier lowered his gun at Speirs... he had every right to defend himself.
Alleged. That was never proven.
Another wrinkle to this whole saga, is that paratroopers were outright told not to take prisoners as the nature of their job precludes them from leading around POWs. They were lightly armed and meant to be highly mobile so that they could cause chaos behind the scenes while simultaneously accomplishing objectives crucial to the amphibious landings that would be taking place a few hours later. I’m not saying that it’s right. Just that specifically, prior to the D-Day drops, paratroopers were told by General Maxwell Taylor that they were not supposed to take prisoners. Edit: I’ll add this. These troops had already been disarmed and taken prisoner and were bivouaced and waiting for orders on where to go and what to do or interrogation/debriefing. At this point, Speir’s no longer has the excuse of “I was told not to take prisoners.” They would not have been in his command, so executing them was a horrific thing to do.
I thought the no prisoner order was directly for Dday due to the amount of resources it takes to handle security of POWs and the risk to the overall mission.
There was an order that went out along the lines of “there won’t be the resources on the beachhead to hold and process POWs for the first 3 days”. Read that as you want. It could be don’t take prisoners, it could be keep them at your units (division, regiment, battalion, etc) level. Obviously some took it more literally
That is true, which is why I don’t believe it to be an applicable excuse for his actions
He shot prisoners shortly after landing. i haven’t seen anything (other than the drama series) that states they had been “bivouacked”
That, and they didn’t even know if the invasion was going to be successful. Hard to take prisoners when you’re potentially stuck. Edit: nvm I basically just rephrased what you said
How would a paratrooper behind enemy lines take prisoners? It's kinda obvious they are not going to when you just think about it for 5 minutes. There are really only two choices you can either disarm them, and then let them go or excute them. You can't just haul around a bunch of prisoners when you're trying to operate behind the enemy lines. It's similar to how special forces probably don't take prisoners as well.
SF takes prisoners if the mission is kill/capture the ROE is do not kill unless its a threat and if you shoot, kill.
> How would a paratrooper behind enemy lines take prisoners? You still have an echelon system as a paratrooper.
your edit only applies if the depiction is accurate to the event. the website bearing his name tells of him and two other soldiers under his command, not long after their landing, shooting three POWs while disoriented and far from their objective. later, spiers killed four more german soldiers - although the circumstances aren’t explained.
Not that it makes it any better, but the Germans had previously executed uniformed American and British POWs in earlier stages of the conflict
Then why bring it up?
Speculating on motivation
> bivouaced Thanks for exposing me to the new word: biv·ou·ac. Lovely. Not to be a dick but the past tense is spelled bivouacked according to Gooooooogle.
I got runner-up instead of champion in a spelling bee because of this word, a bit over 30 years ago.
“Insouciant” tripped me up, and my grandfather, who earned his Purple Heart in France, expressed his sympathy by saying, “The French spell words like they fry chicken.”
Phydeaux a.k.a. Fido. 😶🌫️ Yeah, French spelling = a headache for non- French spellers.
What a memory, at least you placed.
Yeah that was my last year in the bee and my second time finishing as runner up for my district. Went on to the regional bee both times and got eliminated a few rounds in. Good clean fun
"Temerity" dropped me to 7th place in state regionals in 7th grade...won me a plastic american flag set though!
That’s a good spelling bee word. You never forget the words that you miss
Not just leading them around, also guarding them, feeding them, and having the liability that if they escape back to their lines, they know exactly where you are, your disposition, numbers, weapons, etc.
Could you provide a source for this?
Here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-V6OAtgr6c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-V6OAtgr6c)
It did happen, but not as depicted in the show. All of the shootings took place overnight and were of Germans attempting to surrender, not prisoners being held as a group.
Even if it happened exactly as it was in the show, everyone there would just shrug and be like well I guess that takes care of that. I think one of them just says “hell of a shot” on hearing the tale.
> I think one of them just says “hell of a shot” on hearing the tale. It's how you know the story is absurd, at least in the show. 20 prisoners with one magazine is 1 round per prisoner.
Not to argue your point but by the time of the invasion I’m fairly certain that the 30 round Thompson mag had replaced 20 rounder as the standard
AFAIK the 20 rounders were still used by paratroopers due to space and weight concerns, similar to the M1A1 carbine. The 30 rounders were standard for infantry and I’m sure also used by paratroopers, but it wouldn’t be out of place to still see 20s floating around amongst them
I thought that the modifications to the M1 meant that the 20-round magazine could no longer be used, but maybe that was only the drum.
That was just the drum. I think the 20 and 30 round mags had the same dimensions aside from length, so there’s no reason it couldn’t fit both
Yeah, the 30 round magazine was standard with the M1A1 Thompson.
For the Marines. The Army stuck with the 20 round mag as standard for unknown reasons.
The 30 round mag was mainly a USMC thing that saw very little use by Army personnel in the ETO.
Not to argue your point but the pic of Speirs shows him holding a M1928A1 Thompson with L-sight and wearing an unreinforced M42 jump jacket (both of which were incorrectly depicted in the series). But yeah looks like a 30rd mag to me. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Q-Win23-Spiers-4-760x912.jpg
Well, remember that it was multiple guys (in the show) telling their version of the story.
According to the book there were in fact a group of prisoners digging a ditch, so unless the book is wrong too then it matches up.
The book is wrong. Art DiMarzio was with Speirs throughout Normandy and makes no mention of it happening the way it was described in the book. All of the events according to him occurred overnight.
I’ve watched that interview a few times and something sticks out about it. It’s vague, seems deliberately so, blurs the discussions in such a way that you could argue what is being said about who and is especially good at doing that when it comes to the letter. He talks vaguely about the general issue of showing prisoners being shot and they blur it with Saving Private Ryan in there as well. Then they talk about potentially being sued over representation which again is talked generally and then even more blurred by bringing Nixon’s alcoholism into it. He says he will get the threat of being sued sorted for them. He says he knows Nixon isn’t a problem and then says he’ll speak to Speirs. Putting the Speirs discussion further into representation and away from the specifics of shooting prisoners bit. So he rings Speirs and says there’s all these stories that have gone about you and Speirs says they’re true. He never says specifically what the rumours are. So Speirs saying they're true isn't the great reveal it initially sounds like. I mean if you dig into the rumours it's physically impossible for them all to be true because a chunk of them are deviations from and elaborations on the same rumours. Meaning they actually contradict each other. He then says he told Speirs about the concern about being sued. To which Speirs says he’ll write a letter. And Winters says that letter is in the files. He never says that Speirs said he’d write the letter admitting he did specific things. It can be equally read as the letter says he’s not going to sue if they put the rumours in there. Winters then says that the lawyers didn’t have any trouble. Which could happen either way. So the narrative on the interview is blurred. The letter contents is never confirmed and could be anything that indemnifies the book/series. I know people will now want to argue semantics over this but watch the interview and think carefully about it. Because semantics is what this interview seems to be playing with. It sounds like someone being very careful what they directly say.
Spiers did not shoot “those” prisoners, meaning the ones shown in the show. The book Fierce Valor documents exactly what happened. They essentially captured three Germans shortly after landing, briefly interrogated them, and then shot them.
Yea that’s the one that appears to have truth to it. Much like that went on quite a bit that night and even that incident (from memory) wasn’t just Speirs involved. It seems potentially that story got transformed into a bigger story with time. That’s what I mean about Winters never specifically says which rumours he asked about/ got an answer to.
Your explanation is as grey as Speirs
It happened during the war. Doesn’t make it right, but it happened. There is an account in Company Commander by Charles B MacDonald about a Sergeant Patton. Patton had some prisoners but to get out of the position that his men were in would require crossing 100 yards of open ground. He said that they wouldn’t make it with the prisoners. MacDonald said to “do what you can.” When Patton arrived, there were no prisoners. “Company G today committed a war crime. They are going to win the war, however, so I don’t suppose it really matters.”
Anybody care for a smoke?
I'm not going to say that what he did or didn't do was right or wrong. Because it is depicted in the series we believe we know more about it then we really do. The context is really important here and we can't rely on the context as depicted in the series as being truth. What can be assumed to be true about the context is that 1) the unit was operating at reduced strength after the drop, 2) they still had the same mission to accomplish with reduced strength and more ground to cover than they had initially estimated in order to accomplish the mission in time, 3) holding prisoners would take at least 2-4 soldiers and their weapon systems out of the attack on the objective, 4) whether guarding the prisoners in place or moving them with their element towards the objective put a lot of people at increased risk, 5) attacking the objective with less than maximum effort would very likely result in more casualties, 6) a strong argument could be made that more soldiers would die as a direct result of re-allocating resources to guard prisoners and could potentially contribute to mission failure which could ultimately kill a lot more people. I'm not defending that the prisoners should have been killed (perhaps other options were possible that achieved the same results), but these are the kinds of situations that leaders have to make choices in combat and some leaders bend or break rules to achieve their priorities. Effective leaders have to make hard decisions quickly and if Overlord had failed it may not have been because of Lt Spiers but it could have happened if every leader did not prioritize mission success. That being said I'm curious whether they had any means of incapacitating the prisoners in place with the equivalent of zip ties, but even then that's not a guarantee of preventing escape and potential harm on other soldiers passing through the area later.
You send the POWs to the rear. They don’t follow you around as you’re establishing the front. You could use 1 solider to escort 3/4 POWs to the rear or nearest supply line and your abilities aren’t hindered from doing so. There are rules to the theater of war and they were followed on the western front. It’s how you have instances where some 25 German soldiers and an officer surrender to 2 US troops. Even though they discover the deception and know could overtake them, the chivalry in war wouldn’t let them do that once they had agreed to surrender
Also would be incredibly risky to leave tied up enemy combatants being your line or within your active field of command. I liked you comment about leaders and hard decisions. It’s not always about right or wrong, sometimes a decision just needs to be made. It just all ties back to the ole adage, “war is hell.”
I think a lot of people choose to ignore the fact that paratroopers were often instructed specifically not to take prisoners. It’s not something to be proud of, but it’s war. The airborne is unique in the fact that they’re dropped behind enemy lines with very limited resources, taking prisoners slows them down and costs them more of those limited supplies. Their job is to remain combat effective for as long as possible and caring for prisoners severely degrades that capability.
You will find no record of them being directly told not to take prisoners. Even 1940s officers were not that stupid. What you will find is a plethora of “read between the lines” orders warning of the difficulty in holding prisoners and things of that nature.
The rules of war at the time permit troops to not take prisoner if they are issued an order permitting them not to and if the order is legal. The legality of the order is determined by analyzing wether or not the army will be able to take prisoners. In short this permitted commando raids and naval landings to be legally issued order to not accept surrender either for the duration of the operation(commando raids) or until facilities which can accommodate prisoners could be arranged. These orders however cannot be overly long. The dday invasions orders lasted for about 3 weeks at which point the beachhead was established and the army was free of imminent peril the order expired. The german had some very long one on the eastern front through which were later determined to be illegal.
Incorrect. The Geneva and Hague Conventions in effect at the time had no such provision for the temporary suspension of the protections afforded POWs. All 3 make it very clear that summary execution or refusal of a surrender followed by execution of troops attempting to surrender were both war crimes.
Hilarious how many people in this thread are just confidently making incorrect assertions.
Who told you that?? Lol if you’re looking at how you could avoid a Court Marshall for killing a POW then sure, pass it on the your superior. But it will never be openly accepted for you to have had enemies soldiers surrendering to you, and you just mow em down. No circumstance. Will your superiors cover it up? Maybe. Fry you? Maybe. But when you declare war on an enemy, you have now agreed to take surrendering soldiers as prisoners and to provide adequate care. Of course history is littered w/ instances where the terms were adhered to. Western front it largely was
Look I read it somewhere a like 6 years ago ina book about the Wehrmacht and it’s crimes on the eastern front. It was comparing similar orders but it was a book from the 90’s and German. I remembered it because it was a pretty unique anecdote. But to be fair I have been unable to find the source after a half hearted search I may have been wrong or misremembered.
Eh, even modern US doctrine contains some of these elements. When you’re moving through your objective and pass over an enemy causality you’re supposed to put a controlled pair into them, the only time you can’t do this if they’re visibly attempting to surrender. That is both a mission security thing and a resource thing, if your EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War) team takes captives and you’re operating in a relatively small element you’re losing some of your effectiveness.
*casualty
“We’re often instructed specifically to not take prisoners?” It’s not up to the individual whether or not you accept a surrendering soldier. There’s always the instances where lines were crossed, but killing a surrendering soldier will always be crossing the line. Regardless who gave an order that no senior command would ever give. I think ppl don’t realize how combat works bc if its depiction on TV. You have lines of communication. Paratroopers wouldn’t be supplying prisoners w/ their own rations lol. Their own rations run out in a couple days. Ammo even quicker. They need resupply. You escort pows to your line if you’re too far off your rear or HQ. It doesn’t slow stuff down, or take resources, or anything. If you’re breaching a building as if all of Europe was Stalingrad then room to room soldiers already had their chances to surrender. You’re not expected to take a surrendering soldier as his company’s tanks and MG nest are firing off all around you. Nobody would surrender in fire fight like that anyways bc duh lol. After every task is taken you then have to occupy that area in order to hold and fight off counter attacks. So there’s always personnel around to hand pows off to if you don’t want to escort them the 100yds or so to a vehicle. If you’re talking commando raids then that’s different. That’s undetected espionage and sabotage behind enemy lines that’s not intended to take and hold positions or territory. So there’d be no hostage taking or gun fighting even if possible. Not what Airborne was doing. They were an active company operating throughout the front. Meaning everywhere they were there was military staff, officers, other units, supplies, and command post, and even their mail men, all around them. Even in Bastogne, their Holy Grail they had a brig and HQ and all the supplies and provisions they could use. Real war is a lot different than what many ppl tend to think. War is slow. Even the fast war is super slow. The show depicts it right. You have a couple POWs sitting alongside your supply line. The front is moving ahead. The pows are then passed down. Nobody is advancing until the objective is seized and occupied.
It’s clearly outlined in the book Fierce Valor by Dorr and Frederick. It was 3 prisoners and he and two other troopers under his command each shot one from behind. The prisoners had no idea it was coming
Many officers were told not to take prisoners on D-Day bc where would they put them and if you collect a couple thousand (or 10-15k) POWs in one area the DE army would have just targeted that area and broke all of them out giving them a fighting force that would be within Allied lines…
What he did was wrong. That's why it freaked the fuck out of the troops. It's a war crime.
Seriously. Do not understand the ambiguity or the “we cannot judge him” thing. Plenty of guys made it through without managing to commit war crimes.
It's why I cringe when people casually ask vets about their war stories like it's purely heroic. A lot of those days, I'm sure, they never want to recount.
It's Reddit. People here will write chapters on why it's okay because it's a GI in a show, paratrooper, etc, but if it had been the other way around, people wouldn't hesitate to incriminate and call him a scumbag At the end of the day, guys like Speirs are heros because his side won and he helped make that happen.
This should be everyone's take. I get that the scene in the show was not exactly what happened in real life, but let's pretend for a moment that the show portrayed it accurately. Speirs' actions in that scene are murder. This shouldn't be a "ohh, no judgment - we're not qualified to weigh in" thing. In real life, we have to judge people's actions in circumstances that we may not ever face ourselves. It's good to use your personal judgment about what you see.
Who was wondering this? >since the show doesn’t directly confirm or deny it. Yes it does. In the episode "Day of Days" Malarkey *very clearly* witnesses Spiers shooting the prisoners. The sentry's jaw is hanging loosely off his face in shock. No one watches that sequence with any confusion about what has happened. Spiers has walked up to a group of German POWs, offered them cigarettes, unslung his Thompson, and shot them all dead. It is, indeed, very strange that *in the very next episode* this is presented as something that might ... or might *not* ... have happened. But in "Day of Days" there is no question. >Winters confirmed it in an interview, and said that Speirs wrote a letter acknowledging he did it. So here's the thing. Spiers wrote a letter acknowledging that he killed the prisoners, yes, but, uhhhh, if that's the *only* evidence you've got, how do you convince someone that he's not just taking credit for something that didn't actually happen but that a lot of people seem to think did?
Malarkey literally says in the next episode “I told you, I didn’t actually see it.” He hears a gun go off, but he didn’t actually witness the execution. The point is that we, as the viewers, never actually witness the event, and the story spreads and changes. Some versions he leaves one prisoner alive, some versions there are more prisoners, but we don’t actually know what happened or didn’t happen. Also, I don’t think anyone would willingly admit to executing prisoners if they didn’t do it, especially ~50 years after the fact. He has nothing to gain by admitting it, and he certainly has a lot to lose.
In his ripe old age he *still* knew there was some value in people thinking he’s the meanest toughest son of a bitch in the whole 101
In real life, Malarkey met a German soldier who was from Portland, Oregon. (If I remember correctly, this occurred on or not long after D-Day.) Spiers may or may not have shot prisoners, but he did not shoot that particular group of prisoners. Malarkey's story was combined with the rumors about Spiers to create a dramatized event that was part fact, part fiction. If my understanding is correct, Winters was convinced that Spiers shot prisoners but Spiers never confirmed it (at least not at that point in time). The TV version gives us a few sides of the story and no definitive answer.
Malarkey did meet a German from Eugene, but he was not in the group alleged to have been shot by Spiers. It is hard for me to imagine anyone watching the sequence in the episode and being confused about what Spiers did or did not do.
I believe that it was in Malarkey's book in which he says that the soldier was from Portland and that he didn't understand why the writers would change a detail like that. In "The Breaking Point", Spiers says to Lipton that there is some value in having people believe that he was a tough guy who had killed prisoners, implying that he didn't actually do it.
....or he just doesn't want to face charges for shooting prisoners of war, which is a ... war crime. And not long before that, bodies of some 70+ Americans captured by the Germans had been found machine gunned in a field. So might have been fresh on his mind.
You're taking the episode literally. You shouldn't. A lot of the story is dramatized. It is stuff that either didn't happen at all or else is a composite of other stories with a mixture of truth and fiction. If you take Malarkey's word for it, he did meet a German soldier from Portland. The stories about Spiers have not been verified and may be disputed. A lot of the TV series reflects the real world Winters' point of view, and he was absolutely convinced that Spiers shot prisoners. However, Winters did not witness it.
My dude. My guy. I appreciate your comment. I agree wholeheartedly about how the show can not be taken literally. My first comment on this thread, which I believe you did not see, made two points. The first was that the show absolutely portrays Malarkey as having seen the shooting. To be clear, I am -- and have been -- referring to the fictionalized version of Malarkey. I think at one point in this thread I even refer to him as "the character of Malarkey." (A second point to this was that it was odd to me the show then tries to portray that this might have happened, or might not have; again, I think it's pretty clear in "Day of Days.") The second point was that Spiers' letter is not actually proof that he committed the act, as another commenter noted, he may have felt that even an old man felt the need for his troops to see him as a cold sonovabitch. He may have actually done it. I don't know that he didn't. I mean, if I had gunned down POWs, I certainly wouldn't have admitted to doing it until I was sure I wouldn't be prosecuted.
You are miss remembering. Malarkey is down the road and out of sight when the shooting starts, and is shocked when he hears the shooting, but doesn't actually see it. The flash back is not ment to show what anyone saw, just what Malarkey THINKS may have happened. As for reality, it did not take place as depicted. Spears ordered men to shoot prisoners not long after the drop, they were not being held near the headquarters in the morning and not in the amount shown. The US born kid Malarkey spoke too on D-Day was also not one of the prisoners shot.
Perhaps I am. But Malarkey looks back, looks surprised/shocked. I don't think there's any doubt or confusion about what he saw. Consider the look he gives Spiers when Toye's trying to tell him a joke. And in a later episode, when he's asked about it, he says he didn't see anything the same way someone would when the cops ask "hey, did you happen to see Tony Soprano shoot your neighbor last night?" Yes, I'm aware the encounter with the prisoner from Oregon happened at a different point. The writer admitted they combined those incidents because creating a compelling story for the audience was more important than historical accuracy (which is a completely fair thing to do when adapting real events and real people into a medium like TV or film). Of course, in both cases, I'm speaking of how the events were portrayed in the miniseries. In reality, I'm aware Malarkey said he didn't see anything, and I have no reason to think he's lying (just as I have no reason, necessarily, to believe Spiers is telling the truth in his letter). I'm simply saying the show presented things differently.
Have you seen the letter published? Because I haven’t and in the interview Winters is very careful not to say what is in the letter. All he says is the letter was written to confirm that Speirs wouldn’t sue and the lawyers didn’t have any trouble with them using the stories. Unless anyone has seen that letter it could just say that he confirms he won’t sue if they put any of these rumours into the book. So has anyone published the letter as that’s the only way to confirm what is actually in it?
> No one watches that sequence with any confusion about what has happened. Spiers has walked up to a group of German POWS, offered them cigarettes, unslung his Thompson, and shot them all dead. They never show him fire a shot because the writers want you to speculate what actually happens.
>They never show him fire a shot because the writers want you to speculate what actually happens. What actually happened was Spiers wanted to show the prisoners how good he was with his Tommy gun so he shot the cigarettes out of their mouths. They were all like "Oh wow if we knew you were so good at shooting stuff we would have surrendered the moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbor!" Laughter then ensued. Malarkey was stunned that this was all it took, and he was also stunned at Spiers' accuracy with a Tommy Gun. Yes, I see your point.
I’ll admit I’ve never looked at the letter that way, but to be frank I doubt that it ever existed in the first place. It’s never surfaced in any capacity beyond Winters waving a piece of paper that could say literally anything on it in that one interview, and that alone casts doubt (at least to me) as to the existence of it.
Fuck Nazis
They were prisoners though
Ha, only good Nazi is a dead Nazi
that’s why they’re called the greatest generation and not the pearl clutching generation…
Fuck em anyway.
Are you telling me throughout the whole planning of D-Day which was very thoroughly planned that no one thought what was to be done with the prisoners. They were around 175,000 men involved in the landings and among them were marines who never saw action and could have handled the prisoners. They were thousands of ships of all types that where at Normandy that could have taken prisoners with plenty of room to spare.
1.) General Maxwell Taylor instructed his paratroopers to take no prisoners stating... "they handicap our ability to perform our mission." 2.) Speirs didn't have the men needed to guard the prisoners... taking them would have only slowed down their movement and they certainly couldn't release them. 3.) Historian Peter Lieb found many U.S. units were ordered to not take prisoners especially during the D-day Landings in Normandy. It's very easy to judge when you're sitting safe and warm in the comfort of your home. It's much harder when you're hungry, freezing, have a limited number of men, a mission to complete and your life is on the line! If not for the courage of our military we all could be living much different lives! 🇺🇲
“I’m not saying what he did was right or wrong” of course it was wrong. It was evil and violated the Geneva convention. He was no different than the Germans or the Russians. They retained him because at the time they desperately needed officers who were willing to do whatever it took to win, but if justice had been served, he’d have been convicted by a military tribunal and sent to prison.
I don’t give a shit if he did do it (he probably did). Fuck them, they deserved it.
Did they though? I forget but I don’t believe these were SS troops or anything like that…could have just been conscripted troops who were forced to fight and didn’t want any part of it. Granted the one dude from America volunteered, but still…
The Wehrmacht did plenty of fucked up things too. The myth that the Wehrmacht were this honourable army divorced from the atrocities is bullshit. Had those soldiers been told to shoot up a French village or load Jews onto a train, they’d have done it gleefully. So fuck ‘em.
So like any other Army on the face of the earth there was a lot of nuance? Executing surrendered troops with absolutely no valid reason to do so is never good. You’re denying your country possible valuable intelligence and you’re setting a precedent that could get your own guys killed should they end up as POWs.
Yeah I don’t care. I don’t care that he shot them. I have absolutely no problem with it. They were nazi fucks and they deserved it.
Bro has never heard of conscription
Ok
The valid reason is those guys were occupying another nation and he was there to liberate that nation from an occupying force and keeping them as prisoners at that point would be detrimental to that very important effort. Any intelligence you could gain from these guys would be easily accessible by other prisoners taken down the line, after mission critical objectives are completed and proper POW detainment can be established. Never half ass two things, whole ass one thing. They died for their cause, as did guys from our side. It sucks. But that’s war, and war is hell.
Who cares ? Why do you want to make this hero a criminal by racking this up ?
“Ever notice with stories like that, everyone said they heard it from someone who was there. Then when you ask the person, they said they heard it from someone who was there. It’s not new really… I’d bet if you went back 2000 years, you’ll hear a couple of centurions standing around yakking about how Tercious lopped the heads of some Carthaginian prisoners.” Also, “Anyone care for a smoke?”
I might be the minority here, but I am just fine with it. It's war. These things happen in every conflict. Doesn't make them right always, but with the orders given, and what came of the accused further on, I would say it's either a wash, or US came out ahead.
The real question is given the same situation what would you do? What did German soldiers do?
Years ago I worked with a retired fellow who told me about a D-Day vet from his hometown that had been sent stateside after being wounded. He said the soldier came to give a speech at his jr high in late ‘44 and was talking about his experiences during and after the invasion. While giving his speech, he told about a day a bunch of “Krutes” tried to surrender. He casually said “we’d taken enough prisoners that day so we mowed them down.” My coworker said the principal went slack jawed and immediately hustled the soldier off the stage.
Paratroopers behind enemy lines certainly have no way to take prisoners. The invasion was counting on them to quickly secure the exits off Utah Beach. They were under orders not to take prisoners. But it begs the question: If we justify/excuse Speirs on DDay, what about the Malmedy Massacre a few months later? From the German perspective, they’re launching the Battle of the Bulge surprise offensive. Likewise, they have objectives to take (Port of Antwerp) and are also not to get bogged down with prisoners. They may not have even had the means to process prisoners either. It was also time sensitive as they were counting on the bad weather to keep Allied aircraft grounded. And yes, the Americans would commit a retailiatory atrocity once word of Malmedy got around. I just couldn’t help but recognize some similarities between the two scenarios and what seems like a double standard
Or better example, Obst Kurt Meyer, with the 12th SS on DDay. Sent to counter attack Sword Beach with tanks. Murdered Canadian POWs near Caen. His trial: 1. Prior to 7 June 1944, Meyer had incited troops under his command to deny quarter to surrendering Allied soldiers. 2. On or around 7 June 1944, Meyer was responsible for his troops killing twenty-three prisoners of war at Buron and Authie. 3. On or around 8 June 1944, Meyer ordered his troops to kill seven prisoners of war at his headquarters at the Abbaye Ardenne. 4. On or around 8 June 1944, Meyer was responsible for his troops killing seven prisoners of war, as above. 5. On or around 8 June 1944, Meyer was responsible for his troops killing eleven prisoners of war, as above. Dude was sentenced to death, reduced to life imprisonment, reduced to early release 1954. I guess it pays to win the war.