The Twilight War: Chivalry, or war of extermination?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Your thoughts?

[Raellus]

I was just going to post a question about the viability of paroling EPWs in the T2K world in the American Civil War thread I started. I was really surprised by the numerous mentions of incidents in which prisoners during the Civil War were parolled, in some cases almost immediately after capture. In other cases, they were held long enough to arrange a prisoner exchange.

In the past, I've imagined the Twilight War as a war of extermination, with no quarter usually given since blligerents barely have the resources to supply their own troops, let alone EPWs. What prisoners are take are usually worked to death or allowed to die of starvation, exposure, disease, etc. Basically, the way Germans and Soviets treated their opposites in WWII.

Now, I'm not so sure. Why not parole/exchange prisoners? Obviously, because you might have to fight released prisoners again, but if you can get your own back by releasing enemy prisoners you can't really take care of anyway, perhaps it's a good alternative. Disarm captured enemy troops, and then arrange to exchange them for friendly troops held as prisoners by the enemy. Now you don't have to guard and/or feed them, and you regain some of your own manpower once your own returned [former] prisoners are cleaned up and reequipped. It's also a great way to incorporate allied troops into your PC groups as I'm sure, due to record keeping difficulties, a NATO unit would likely receive troops from various NATO nations in any prisoner exchange.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I think, from the outset in China it was a war of extermination: the Soviets were out to completely extirpate every Chinese citizen within range.

In the West, they didn't pull the nuclear trigger until the USSR was invaded; from late '95 to late '96 even when they were losing and NATO was faltering (the "stab in the back" from Italy, just as one example) the Soviets weren't willing to cross "that line".

Once the TDM had gone down though I'd wager a shoot on sight/no surrenders accepted general feeling would prevail at least among US troops.

After that, from '99 through early 2000, though, I can see it becoming a "gentleman's war", possibly. So...up, down, then back up again, then back down again (after the destruction of the 5th). NATO and the USSR just want to disentangle themselves from one another - albeit in the best strategic position available - and be done with it.

But...yeah, I can't see a lot of quarter accepted from '97 to '99.

[Adm.Lee]

It might vary. I bet in the units that have given up on winning, and are more interested in going home, the leadership might start keeping PW alive as offers for a truce to allow them to disengage.

It might start in the winter of '99, with a Christmas truce, like in 1914.

[DigTw0Grav3s]

I think that a lot of prisoners would be integrated into the societies or units that detain them, normal caveats of danger and sanity withstanding. The difficulty of communications over relatively short distances would make most communities self-reliant islands in pretty short order. EPWs would be integrated or disposed of in equal measure and short order.

In terms of extermination, I don't think it really matters. Whatever is left after the nuclear exchange doesn't have the resources to exterminate much of anything. Back to the dark ages!

[B.T.]

It might vary. I bet in the units that have given up on winning, and are more interested in going home, the leadership might start keeping PW alive as offers for a truce to allow them to disengage.

It might start in the winter of '99, with a Christmas truce, like in 1914.

I totally agree!

What RJP wrote seems equally reasonable. But I like Adm.Lee's idea of a Christmas truce (Ah, if you listen really carefully, you might hear "all together now" from "The Farm" in the background:))!

And I think, that letting PoWs live, could be a kind of "winning hearts and minds", maybe in an odd fashion. Most soldiers will be very war-tired. If the PoW behave, why kill them, after all?

[Rainbow Six]

In the past, I've imagined the Twilight War as a war of extermination, with no quarter usually given since blligerents barely have the resources to supply their own troops, let alone EPWs. What prisoners are take are usually worked to death or allowed to die of starvation, exposure, disease, etc. Basically, the way Germans and Soviets treated their opposites in WWII.

Sorry to be a pessimist, but whilst one would hope that before the nuclear exchanges the Geneva Convention would hold, afterwards I've always imagined things going this way for POW's on both sides rather than any more humane treatment.

[mikeo80]

Sorry to be a pessimist, but whilst one would hope that before the nuclear exchanges the Geneva Convention would hold, afterwards I've always imagined things going this way for POW's on both sides rather than any more humane treatment.

I think that what Rainbow says is probably true. However, there is the example of the Thirty Year War in Europe. Here you had massive (for the time) armies of mercenaries. If your side lost, and you were still alive, many times you were offfered employment by the winner. There were exceptions to this, of course, but the idea being a trained soldier is a trained soldier. No matter his religion or home. I could see this occuring during T2K.

My $0.02

Mike

[natehale1971]

There is one thing that EPWs would be perfect for... sending them back to the cantonments where they would have to work for their upkeep. be it by farming, or other menial labor that frees up allied troops fro having to do the labor intensive duties... espeically after the allied units are moblized for combat operations.

The EPWs would be part of the REMFs that are left at the cantonments, keeping the supply trains running to keep those deployed forces equipted. This takes the EPWs out of a combat zone, and puts them where the allies need labor the most. It's true that armies travel on their stomachs, and with the losses suffered by both sides, the large tails that kept combatants on the frontline have been so severely reduced when they canibalized said tail to build up their combatant commands.

it's just an idea... but in my games, we had EPW attached to cantoments providing menial labor until they prove their loyality and thus become part of the allied combatant forces.

[Raellus]

The EPWs would be part of the REMFs that are left at the cantonments, keeping the supply trains running to keep those deployed forces equipted. This takes the EPWs out of a combat zone, and puts them where the allies need labor the most. It's true that armies travel on their stomachs, and with the losses suffered by both sides, the large tails that kept combatants on the frontline have been so severely reduced when they canibalized said tail to build up their combatant commands.

It's not a bad idea, having EPWs work for their own upkeep, as well as that of their captors, but this would require able-bodied friendly forces to guard them and with the manpower shortages in the later years of the Twilight War, I don't see most armies wanted to waste combat manpower.

I think you'd see a little of everything. It would probably be up to the regional cantonment commander (although whether subordinant unit commanders down to the platoon level would follow suit is another matter). Even in 2000, I doubt that anyone would put their name to any document instructing their troops to offer no quarter. It might be a wink and a nod sort of thing, though. Some commanders might look the other way or subtly encourage the killing of enemy prisoners. You might have one or two hard-asses that outright tell their troops not to take prisoners. On the other hand, some might use EPWs as labor on cantonment farms or whatever. Others might look to make prisoner exchanges with local counterparts. I think it would depend on the personality/command philosophy of the local commander and the circumstances in the AO.

[Matt Wiser]

EPW policy pre-nuclear would be along Geneva lines, though the Soviets signed it, no one knew if the Soviets would go along with it. Shipping prisoners to gulags was what one may have expected. Once the nuclear exchanges end, and things start to break down, there's not going to be a single policy. As Raellus and nate said, there's going to be uses for EPWs kept in captivity (forced labor mainly), but other units might decide to hold them to swap for friendlies, some might just decide to interrogate and release, others ask questions and then shoot, and a few units might just decide not to take any, period.

Female EPWs have, shall we say....other uses, besides forced labor...and leave it at that.

One group of prisoners might find freedom pretty fast: if you recall Escape from Kalisz, one of the nearby communities (Zdunska Wola, IIRC) has a POW compound with 60 or so American POWs from 5th ID. Want to bet that when 4th GTA breaks down, those POWs are going to be released outright, and given their weapons back?

[Panther Al]

I think that what Rainbow says is probably true. However, there is the example of the Thirty Year War in Europe. Here you had massive (for the time) armies of mercenaries. If your side lost, and you were still alive, many times you were offfered employment by the winner. There were exceptions to this, of course, but the idea being a trained soldier is a trained soldier. No matter his religion or home. I could see this occuring during T2K.

My $0.02

Mike

So, I'm not the only one seeing pretty large shades of the 30 Year War as well in TW2K eh?

That or you are a Fan of Eric Flint...

[Legbreaker]

I agree that in the latter stages of the conflict, all available options will be found somewhere. It'll come down to the capturing unit's ability to hold them, dispose of them, etc as well as the commanders personal ideas - is he still dead set on prosecuting the war? If so the PWs will be dealt with according to defined doctrine, if not they might be shot, or released, or something in between.
The behaviour and conditions surrounding the capture will also have significant bearing on their fate.

[natehale1971]

I had always played it that Cantonment REMF garrisons were predomently composed of those military personnel who were no longer frontline combat capable, along with MP detachments and local indigneous personnel that had been recruited for various duties (for those menial jobs you don't want to risk an EPW to hold).

[mikeo80]

So, I'm not the only one seeing pretty large shades of the 30 Year War as well in TW2K eh?

That or you are a Fan of Eric Flint...

I am a HUGE fan of Eric Flint. And I think that the 30 Year War, the American Civil War, the French and Indian War, and the American Revolution War all have some similarities to the war in 1998-2000.

My $0.02

Mike

[Rainbow Six]

The Sharpe series of books by Bernard Cornwell (and TV series starring Sean Bean) set during the Napolenic Wars always struck me as being similar to what T2K might be like after the exchanges, with no air power, vehicles, etc.

[James Langham]

I would be inclined more towards the Crimean War:

* poor medical services

* logistic nightmares - especially British

* appearance of war correspondents

* irregular troops on both sides (Cossacks and Bashi Bazouks)

* unusual alliances (Britain and France - some of the senior officers had actually fought at Waterloo!)

* longer engagement ranges against more dispersed targets

* infantry defeating cavalry without forming squares

* British troops following impossible orders - and carrying them out!

* Senior officers away from the fighting - shades of WW1 Chateaux Generalship

On the other hand - go read Sharpe, watch Sean Bean and then look for the joke in the Fellowship of the Ring!

[Lundgren]

One of the reasons why the Nazis started to use gas was because of the breakdown of discipline in the units carrying out the mass murders. I would imagine the same would apply to any unit that started to execute their prisoners. So some of the bands of marauders could be from units that decided to go by option of executing.

There are also the point of not making the enemy desperate. Desperate people will fight a lot harder. "Hopeless fight" vs "taken prisoner", or "Hopeless fight" vs "be executed"...

So as long there are work to be done, I would imagine work camps being to most common option.

[Raellus]

One of the reasons why the Nazis started to use gas was because of the breakdown of discipline in the units carrying out the mass murders. I would imagine the same would apply to any unit that started to execute their prisoners. So some of the bands of marauders could be from units that decided to go by option of executing.

There are also the point of not making the enemy desperate. Desperate people will fight a lot harder. "Hopeless fight" vs "taken prisoner", or "Hopeless fight" vs "be executed"...

So as long there are work to be done, I would imagine work camps being to most common option.

Those are a couple of really good points. One of the main reasons the Wermacht kept fighting for as long as it did was that they believed that they could expect no quarter from the vengeful Red Army. To some degree this was a very valid concern. Soviet propagandists actually had to tone down their anti-German rhetoric in the last few months of the war because atrocities against German civilians had become so common.

[Neal5x5]

Challenge Magazine #51 has the adventure Black Siberia, in which "The PCs must break out of - or into - the prison camp known as Black Siberia." The camp commander uses prisoners for slave labor to mine iron ore, reload ammunition, and small manufacturing. One of the options for getting the players into the camp is to have them captured by a military unit and then sold to the camp commander as slaves.

[Adm.Lee]

I had always played it that Cantonment REMF garrisons were predominantly composed of those military personnel who were no longer frontline combat capable, along with MP detachments and local indigenous personnel that had been recruited for various duties (for those menial jobs you don't want to risk an EPW to hold).

That's just what I was thinking, too.