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.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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!

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by mikeo80

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.

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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