|
|
Post by steveh on Nov 2, 2012 17:00:09 GMT 12
but the considerable number of POW ships targetted during WW2 don't quite justify the excuse of "mistakes" imo. I wonder what sort of percentage of shipps carrying POWs this "considerable number" really represnts. We always tend to hear of the tragedies but possibly & I would say almost ceratinly a far greater proportion of these vessels sailed unmolested. If it was a significantly large percentage then I'm guessing these instances would assume greater prominence in WW2 literature. Steve. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 2, 2012 17:21:42 GMT 12
Many of the Allied POW's were actually taken to Italy by submarine.
In the book Farewell Campo 12 by Brigadier Hargest he describes going that way after he was captured. It turned out the Italian skipper of the submarine had a kiwi wife living in Italy. He'd been to NZ several times and he loved kiwis.
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Nov 2, 2012 18:20:49 GMT 12
"I have no disagreement with taking out merchant ships carrying enemy troops and equipment."
That is rather naive thinking. It matters not whether a ship is carrying such a load. Sinking an empty ship that is capable of carrying a load removes its capability of carrying any future load - ie it helps weaken the enemy's ability to continue to wage war, and is thereby also a legitimate target.
I note that the Bruce Haigh's excerpts are generic in nature. No specific mention of Linton is made and thus proves or disproves nothing.
I am not a group captain, as I'm sure you are well aware. That is a device, similar to those on many other forums, put in place by the moderator relating to the number of posts made. It's not something that I control.
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 2, 2012 19:34:37 GMT 12
Errol is right, it is just like the strafing and destroying of trains, something done by both sides a lot in WWII. It was not about who was or might be inside - it was about taking out one of the means of supplying the front lines and transporting arms and troops. Sometimes sadly there were civilains aboard, sometimes POW's, sometimes wounded, but usually there were bonefide enemy targets. The pilots had no way of knowing unless a red cross was displayed on the train. All trains were a target otherwise. Same goes for trucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Nov 3, 2012 9:47:36 GMT 12
Think you find there wasn't a POW ship as such just a freighter that happend to be in port going back empty. And I'm pretty sure the enemy didn't post a schedule of what was on board for anyone to decide wether they should attack it or not. And if a flag of some kind was supposed to be flown it would soon be used for military cargo so it wouldn't get sunk. The Germas flew floatplanes during the Battle of Britain with (I think) green or maybe red crosses to say they were for Search and Rescue. When the RAF realsied they were actually calling in positions of shipping they were then became legitimate targets.
Sorry for your relatives loss but he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, no submarine commmander could possibly know the ship he could see had POWs onboard and that goes for both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossherb on Nov 6, 2012 14:31:07 GMT 12
"I have no disagreement with taking out merchant ships carrying enemy troops and equipment." That is rather naive thinking. It matters not whether a ship is carrying such a load. Sinking an empty ship that is capable of carrying a load removes its capability of carrying any future load - ie it helps weaken the enemy's ability to continue to wage war, and is thereby also a legitimate target. I note that the Bruce Haigh's excerpts are generic in nature. No specific mention of Linton is made and thus proves or disproves nothing. I am not a group captain, as I'm sure you are well aware. That is a device, similar to those on many other forums, put in place by the moderator relating to the number of posts made. It's not something that I control. Errol The point of the article by Bruce Haigh was to highlight the problems associated with making posthumous awards for bravery. After the death of the recipient it is usual to paint a rosy and justifiable picture without reference to the less savoury aspects of a person's career. If we take a civil equivalent, say where a police officer (for example) guns down and kills a fellow officer by accident, would that officer feel that they deserved an award even though they had performed other undoubtedly good deeds and brave acts during the rest of their career? And further, if the public knew of such a tragedy, would they think that this officer was deserving of an award? In both instances I think the answer would be a resounding NO! The same should have applied to Linton imo. That is the problem which Haigh was alluding to. As to the reason for this thread in the first place.... I thought it was about the truth behind the attack on Nino Bixio. Well the thing is that the NB (and other POW ships) appear to have been deliberately targeted because the Brits were aware of the POW movements ahead of their departure. How could deliberately targeting your own POW's be strategically vital to the war effort, let alone being ethically justifiable? I would suggest you read this account (if you haven't already) regarding another so-called "tragedy" - the SS Scillin. www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/user/48/u844948.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by rossherb on Nov 6, 2012 15:47:19 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Nov 6, 2012 16:29:21 GMT 12
"The point of the article by Bruce Haigh was to highlight the problems associated with making posthumous awards for bravery. After the death of the recipient it is usual to paint a rosy and justifiable picture without reference to the less savoury aspects of a person's career."
A case of an exception (or two) that proves the rule. Clearly something not understood by Haigh or, dare I say, yourself. I bet Haigh wouldn't have the courage to front up to the likes of Willie Apiata, VC, and challenge him with such drivel!
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by rossherb on Nov 6, 2012 21:59:52 GMT 12
"The point of the article by Bruce Haigh was to highlight the problems associated with making posthumous awards for bravery. After the death of the recipient it is usual to paint a rosy and justifiable picture without reference to the less savoury aspects of a person's career." A case of an exception (or two) that proves the rule. Clearly something not understood by Haigh or, dare I say, yourself. I bet Haigh wouldn't have the courage to front up to the likes of Willie Apiata, VC, and challenge him with such drivel! Errol I was trying to point out the possibility of painting a rosy picture in order to justify a citation when making posthumous awards - not that it was the case in ALL posthumous awards - I thought this was explained in the Haigh article. I am however of the opinion that this possibility seems to have applied in the specific case of Linton. We don't know what he would have thought of being awarded the VC if it had been awarded while he was alive. You conveniently skirted around the subject of the thread or the links I posted and now you are issuing a childish challenge. Willie Apiata was not awarded the VC posthumously - as you would be aware. I would never try to belittle the exploits of Willie Apiata VC, or try to compare him with the likes of Tubby Linton. The two are mutually exclusive. Willie showed exceptional courage in the face of the enemy while under fire. He is a true hero and one NZ should be extremely proud of. It is sad to see the NZ Defence Forces lose such a man following the award. Willie obviously didn't appreciate being kept in cotton wool. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/nz-vc-recipient-willie-apiata-to-quit-sas/story-fn3dxix6-1226429296454A similar reluctant hero is Cpl Ben Roberts-Smith VC (whom I have known since he was a child) www.defence.gov.au/special_events/Roberts-Smith/and also Trooper Mark Donaldson SAS VC www.defence.gov.au/special_events/TPR_markDonaldson.htmand also Cpl Daniel Keighran VC www.defence.gov.au/special_events/keighran/Daniel didn't even tell his wife he was nominated until a few weeks before the award ceremony and he was in the dog house for a while. Like Willie, he resigned from the army (before the VC was presented) and is now a reservist. None of these men shot their mates nor would they have fired on helpless POW's (unlike Linton). These heroes (Apiata et-al) were all reluctant VC recipients and probably felt they were undeserving of the VC. I am sure they all regarded it as more of a hindrance than a help as they knew they would be held back from further active service when all they wanted to do was go back and continue doing their job as before. Anyway, I will be out of action for a week from tomorrow (knee replacement) so you will have to carry on without me ;D |
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Nov 6, 2012 22:43:40 GMT 12
"Anyway, I will be out of action for a week from tomorrow (knee replacement) so you will have to carry on without me"
An opportunity also for you to perhaps have that large chip you have about Linton removed from your shoulder!
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by chinapilot on Nov 7, 2012 1:42:08 GMT 12
I was going to suggest some professional help...
|
|
|
|
Post by rossherb on Nov 7, 2012 14:30:58 GMT 12
"An opportunity also for you to perhaps have that large chip you have about Linton removed from your shoulder!"
The chip is there because of the evidence which indicates that Linton didn't just make an error in the heat of battle.
I wonder if you would be so accepting of a military officer in today's forces were he presented a gallantry award after doing something similar to what Linton did?
|
|
|
|
Post by rossherb on Nov 7, 2012 14:36:47 GMT 12
"I was going to suggest some professional help..."
Thanks for your concern, but really, it's not necessary... I'm just not as gullible and accepting of people who don't do the right thing by their fellow man and their compatriots.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 7, 2012 15:40:17 GMT 12
Can you remind us of the evidence that Linton knew that the Nino Bixio was carrying POWs? What orders had been issued regarding the matter? If I was in RN HQ and was told that a particular ship had POWs on it, the last person I would tell is the captain of a sub expected (or even ordered) to be in the area.
Have you compared the types of ships sunk by other RN subs in the Med at that time with Linton's record? My gut reaction is that he would have been following doctrine and orders in manoeuvring around (very difficult to hit) escorts to attack cargo vessels.
Is there any evidence that the crew of RN subs operating in the Med could identify cargo ships by name while on patrol? You seem to be assigning emotions and thoughts to a person without even knowing what information that they had available to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2012 16:15:51 GMT 12
I tried to find the actual article that my original 2007 post at the beginning of the thread refered to and failed, so I can only deduce that I saw it on TV and not online. I too would like to see more about what was actually revealed in 2007 as I have completely forgotten the details.
I doubt very much at all that British submarine commanders had any sort of reconiyion chart for everny individual Italian vassel afloat, nor would they have been able to easily identify the name on the vessel - if it was even carried - using the periscope. If you really want to find out for sure about such conditions, I am sure Con Thode would be happy to talk to you about it. He served on and later commanded submarines in the Meditteranean, and he lives at Okura, aged about 101, but when I met him aged 99 he had an incredibly sharp memory and never failed to answer a single question. He may well even have possibly known the commander and crew in question here.
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Nov 7, 2012 16:23:02 GMT 12
"The chip is there because of the evidence which indicates that Linton didn't just make an error in the heat of battle."
I'm sure we all look forward to seeing this 'evidence' you speak of.
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by muchabella1 on Oct 24, 2015 13:23:30 GMT 12
I see that the sad truth about the demise of the Italian ship, the Nino Bixio, has been revealed. The Nino Bixio was sunk by a British submarine in the Med, when it was sailing from North Africa home to Italy, on the 17th of August 1942 - 65 years ago. Aboard the ship were around 3000 Allied prisoners of war, and when the submarine HMS Turluent put a torpedo into the ship, 300 PoW's were killed (including 117 New Zealanders of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force). It has always been thought that the submarine and Royal Navy high command were unaware that the Italian transport was carrying Allied PoW's. However files just released confirm they did indeed know it was a prisoner transport and the order was given to sink the ship and sacrifice the men in order to prevent the Nino Bixio escaping and returning to North Africa with more supplies and Axis troops. It's a sad decision that ruined many lives. Some of those aboard were from Cambridge. One such survivor created a memorial in the front garden of his Thornton Road, Cambridge, home dedicated to his lost comrades and friends. It was in the form of a raised concrete structure with red scoria on top and the words NINO BIXIO in white painted onto the scoria. He kept it immaculate till his death, and his son, who is a little simple, sadly let it deteriorate to the point where he decided to have it removed. To learn that those 117 young kiwis died perhaps needlessly, as did their allied comrades, just highlights the senselessness of some wartime decisions. Still, one wonders, had the ship returned to North Africa laiden with fresh troops and ammunition and supplied, how many other young NZ'ers and Allies might have been killed by that action. So it's difficult to make a call on this. |
|
|
|
Post by angelsonefive on Oct 24, 2015 14:25:46 GMT 12
Some interesting facts about the Nino Bixio from Wikipedia :
The ship was not sunk by the attack. Her bulkheads held and she was towed to Pylos in Greece and beached for temporary repairs.
From Pylos the ship was towed to Venice and sunk as a block ship, part of the port's defences.
After the war the ship was raised, repaired, and put back into commercial service.
The Nino Bixio visited several NZ ports, and on 25 January 1955 a wreath-laying ceremony was held aboard in Wellington Harbour.
The ship was withdrawn from service in 1970, and scrapped in August 1971.
HM Submarine Turbulent was lost with all hands off Sardinia on 23 March 1943. Commander Linton's VC was awarded posthumously.
a15
|
|
|
|
Post by haughtney1 on Oct 24, 2015 17:41:50 GMT 12
Just found this thread and thought I'd ad a bit to it.
My Grandad on my Mums side (Sgt William Wilson) was one of the NZ POWs on the Nino Bixio and he survived despite having a torpedo penetrate the hull about 10 feet from him, it fortunately didn't explode.
I remember having a chat to him before moving to the UK about this particular ordeal and was surprised that he and many of his colleagues didn't expect to make their final destination, in fact they ran a sweepstake...on the assumption that no one would around to collect their winnings!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 24, 2015 19:18:40 GMT 12
Is he still around now?
|
|
