After reading Susan Balnek-Ballard's story "The Inocents" I wondered if any of the combat episodes addressed the issue of german atrocities. I haven't seen all the combat episodes and am impatiently waiting for History tv to bring it back.

By Patricia Sewell (Patsewell) on Unrecorded Date:

The episode GIDEON'S ARMY touched on this with the squad discovering a concentration camp in Season Two. During the last season the episode GADJO was concerned with the fate of a German officer (SS) who had ordered the slaughter of Gypsy men, women, and children.

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

This series never really emphased German atrocities. I suppose that is because the producers were too worried about the show becoming a propaganda trap. Gadjo is a great example of the few that does face this issue. Another would be The Long Way Home. It touches on SS torture of American prisoners when the squad is taken prisoner.

By Nathaniel Bridger (Nathaniel) on Unrecorded Date:

Another thing: the series neatly sidesteps the issue of bigotry. I can't help thinking that the episode entitled "The Outsider" --about the 'country boy' alienated from the rst of the squad -- was originally written for a BLACK actor....

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

Hi, Rose. It's Lyne again. Think there's yet more mention of German atrocities in the episode "The Cassock". Just happened that I was talking about it with a friend the other day. There's a scene in which the young guest star (Mark Hulswit, I believe), goes into a confessional with a German disguised as a priest. He's sorry for his "sin" of wanting out of the war, of wanting to go home to his family, that he forgot all about the "oppression" that the Germans are causing; that if the American Army weren't there in France, millions would be "repressed". It's not much and mentioned only briefly in passing, but I thought it was interesting that the soldier said this right in the face of a German Officer! Strange thing is, the officer just nods, bows his head, he doesn't even look insulted by what he just heard. Could it be that he agrees? You know, at another point in the story, this german has an interesting conversation with Saunders. Do you enjoy being a soldier, he asks him. Sarge simply replies that it's just a job, being a soldier. Hey! Way to be sympathetic with the suffering masses, Sarge. Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

P.S. I requested a subscription into the discussion list as you suggested, but haven't heard from Nancy Durgin yet. Perhaps I didn't quite do it right although I believe all went well. Anyway, I hope to get an answer soon.
Lyne

By Diane M. Judy (Djudy) on Unrecorded Date:

Lyne,
I disagree with you and Sgt. Saunder's response.
I believe he meant he doesn't like the job of killing but it has to be done so he does it like a job. And he is very good at doing that job because he cares.Sort of like the saying "It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it." He obivously is a sensite person.

Diane

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

Of course, you are absolutely right, Diane.
Lyne

By lillian branscum (Lillian) on Unrecorded Date:

But if you've seen "The Bridge at Chalons" where Lee Marvin guest starred? Near the end, a german guard discovers Sarge and Lee Marvin. Saunders has to kill him to protect the mission. The look on Saunders' face shows his horror and disgust at what he has to do. I believe it leaves to doubt that 'it's a dirty job etc' and Sarge doesn't like it but knows what he has to do. And he always put his men first.

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

Hi, Lillian. It is a expression of absolute disgust. Saunders just breaks my heart when he looks that way. You can tell that doing that sort of thing is not natural to him. We can see that exact same look of horror when he must stab the german soldier in the episode "The Hunter". He even sort of looks away a little; he seems to hate it so much.

By Diane M. Judy (Djudy) on Unrecorded Date:

Lillian,

Your comment about Saunder's look of horror and digust just goes to prove what I was saying.
Sarge does the job because it has to be done yet doesn't like killing or the reason for that killing i.e. Germen atrocities.

Diane

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

Would the beating of the Lt. (Kirby's brother in law) on Retribution be considered an atrocity? The squad finds Kirby's brother in law, a young American officer, tied and beaten to death by his SS captors. I don't think that it was racial hatred in any way, but it was the torture of a helpless man. Just a thought...
Rose (Hazelnut)

By Patricia Sewell (Patsewell) on Unrecorded Date:

An atrocity is "anything cruel or evil, an outrageous act" according to the dictionary. I would think beating someone to death would be considered an atrocity. Atrocities were committed on both sides, but it was more common with the Axis forces.

By Nancy LionStorm (349hvywpnscrew) on Unrecorded Date:

Not only that but it was against the Geneva Convention. That made it criminal to abuse POWs.

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

In the episode "The Brothers", two french resistance fighters are captured along with Hanley's soldiers. The German officer who holds this group seems to have no qualms about beating the civilians very very badly in order to get information. Presumably because torturing American Soldiers would have been agains the Geneva Convention. The idea seem to be that Germans would have had the right to beat the pulp out of anyone else if they didn't wear a uniform. Would this be correct? I hardly think that the methods used in this episode would be acceptable under the terms of that convention.

By Patricia Sewell (Patsewell) on Unrecorded Date:

Allied POWs were often tortured, deprived of basic necessities such as decent food and clothing. It depended on who captured them and where they were incarcerated afterwards. Even though the Germans signed the Geneva Convention, they often ignored it if it served their purposes.

Remember the men who were executed in the movie The Great Escape? That really happened. Those men were made examples of by the Germans, recently revealed that Hitler himself ordered their execution.

The Japanese had not signed the Geneva Convention, so they did whatever they pleased. Shooting medical personnel and inhumane treatment of Allied prisoners was standard procedure.

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

Saunders and his men are pretty lucky though. They are only "beaten" a couple of times, and never very badly. Hanley is a even more so. He was never treated roughly by his captors. For instance, when he is asked for information on A Rare Vintage, he tells the Germans to "get lost." The Germans do leave, saying that they will think of a way to trick him into talking later. I think that part of this is the violence factor. Seeing men shot on 60's TV and seeing our boys tortured are two different things altogether. Could viewers have watched the men of King Co. that we have grown to love beaten terribly? I think that it would have been too much violence back then. In The Raider, Hanley is captured by SS Raiders and treated very politely. Were these GI's lucky or was this just Hollywood??? En if it's just a show, I don't know if I could handle watching the Germans beat Hanley, Saunders, Kirby, etc. It makes me cry to watch them wounded because they all act so convincingly.
Hazelnut

By Nancy LionStorm (349hvywpnscrew) on Unrecorded Date:

About "A Rare Vintage". Actually the Krauts DO torture Hanley by their very INACTION, just by leaving him in pain from his wound and continuing to lose blood. Hanley must have suffered terribly. He even looked to be in shock or on the verge of it. Now that IS most definitely a form of torture, and the Krauts KNEW this very well. By this flaunting of the Geneva Convention's rules regarding the treatment POWs I have no doubt that even if our Lieutenant had 'talked' the Krauts would have left him to bleed to death. So long from your friendly 349th

- Heavy Weapons Crew

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

I think that the Kraut officer in "A Rare Vintage" seemed more interested in finding a drink somewhere than actually bothering to spend time questioning his prisoner. Hanley's situation here is quite painful for viewers to watch. And the "promise" of medical aid seems to be simply another form of torture for Hanley. It is quite evident that it won't happen.

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

Thanks for the great comments, gals. I never really thought about it that way before. Hanley was in obvious shock and pain. For the Germans to just leave him like that without help of any kind, was a subtle form of torture. You got the feeling of his torment, but without all of the bloody graphics that a severe beating would have given. In any case, the Germans probably figured that the Lt. could hardly be in any worse pain than he was in, and to hurt him worse would accomplish nothing while offering him help might make a lesser man tempted to spill. A subtle form of torture..Hmmmm.never thought of the episode that way before.
Hazelnut

By Dana Eugene Creasy (Deecee322) on Unrecorded Date:

There've been several mentions of the "Geneva Convention" in this particular discussion. Here's a bit of general information which hopefully will inform the members about it.

The first "Geneva Convention" was held in 1864 in The Hague and dealt with rules regarding land warfare, originally on the treatment of the sick and wounded. Later, amendments covered the types of weapons allowed to be used. Most people are unaware that by international agreement, certain weapon types are outlawed, including the use of hunting-type soft nosed expanding bullets in small arms. The projectile must be fully lead jacketed to prevent expansion, and thus a more serious wound. Sounds a bit callous, doesn't it?

The next series of conventions took place in 1906-1907 and governed land warfare through and after World War I. In 1929, amendments signed by most countries corrected deficiencies in that agreement and governed conduct up through World War II. Technically, it prevented the Nazis, Japanese or anyone else from torturing anyone.

Prisoners of War (POW), in international law, term used to designate incarcerated members of the armed forces of an enemy, or noncombatants who render them direct service and who have been captured during wartime. Surgeons, chaplains, news correspondents, and hospital attendants of the Red Cross are not included in this category, nor are civilians who are detained and interned in belligerent countries. So you see, the torture of the French civilians, although technically members of the Resistance, or Free Forces of Liberation under General Charles DeGaulle, were specifically barred from being considered POWs. Further, Prisoners of war have no protection from the law of the nation that captures them and no civil remedy. By the customs, treaties, and conventions of international law, however, prisoners are supposed to be granted humane treatment by the enemy. The provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1906 and 1929 were largely disregarded by totalitarian regimes, particularly those of Germany and Japan.

After the experiences of War Two, another group convened in 1949 and created several treaties, together known as "The Geneva Convention". Article 13 of the 1949 Convention states "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by
the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of
war in its custody is prohibited,and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present
Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical,
dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest."

While this was somewhat spelled out in earlier treaties, it is more formal in the 1949 one. Basically, by not attending to Hanley's wounds, the Germans violated the convention (failure to provide medical attention being considered mistreatment).

Interestingly, the North Vietnamese used as their excuse to violate the terms of the accords the fact that the US had not "declared war" on them, and therefore, since formal war was not in existence, the treaties were not in force. Interesting technical point. Normally, to the victors belong the spoils, including the right to try the vanquished, vis-a-vis the Nuremburg Trials and the current trials in The Hague of Bosnian Serbs and others accused of war attrocities and crimes. However, we did not win in Viet Nam, so no one was ever held accountable for the actions of the enemy.

Hope this long winded explanation is of some value. I appreciate reading everyone's comments and love this site. Keep it up!

By Dana Eugene Creasy (Deecee322) on Unrecorded Date:

Sorry, I misspoke in my previous post. Regarding small arms projectiles, they must be fully encased in a solid metal, not pure lead, to prevent expansion similar to that used in hunting-type bullets. Recall the name of the film, "Full Metal Jacket"? All small arms ammunition used by all organized armies of the world are of this type, commonly known as "ball" ammunition. Not to say that militias and others don't use whatever they get their hands on...

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

Thank you Deecee. You have answered a question that I had wanted to post. Very useful and interesting information to know about. This discussion being about atrocities, In some Combat episodes, do you find that atrocities take the "torture for information" factor one step further into the "torture of someone just for the pleasure of it"? That, to me, truly constitutes the worst kind of atrocities; in wartime or not.

By Brenda Koehler (Jasmine) on Unrecorded Date:

In regard to the use of torture by the North Vietnamese, I would like to state for the sake of balance that the violation of the Geneva Convention was a mutual affair. North Vietnamese captives were routinely tortured for information by our forces although they were instructed not to leave any marks. Field phones, dehydration, and mistreatment of the wounded were the most common methods. Not the stuff of TV shows. jasmine

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

That's an interresting thought there, Lyne. There is a difference between the two. The SS, in particular, seem to enjoy torturing helpless POW'a just for the fun of it. But, I do not feel that this applies to Combat. I do not remember any episode in which the Germans just hurt the prisoners for the fun of it, and not for information. As soon as they get what they want or no longer need it, the Germans seem to cease all rough behavior. BTW, Dana thanks for all of the info. A lot of us Combat fans love the show, but are ignorant of the background for the show.
People like you are good to have around.
Hazelnut

By Nancy LionStorm (349hvywpnscrew) on Unrecorded Date:

Hi ya, Hazelnut!

If you don't think that happened on COMBAT! then I suggest you take another look at "The Long Way Home". Cpt. Steiner enjoyed the torture of that poor grocery store clerk. It may not have been obvious to some viewers, but it was clear to me that Steiner continued to have him abused well past the need to. If the little guy had merely been beaten to the point of near death early in the plot, then Steiner would have simply had the guy tossed back into the prisoner-compound. But Steiner doesn't do that, does he? Steiner holds onto that grunt right up to the end of Part Two, so that every minute Saunders puts off collaborating (or effecting their escape) is time during which the little guy is beaten. Remember that there was really nothing Doc could have done to help the dying GI, so the only reason to keep this Joe was to continue torturing him. The only time Steiner doesn't have him tortured is when one of the other squad members is being 'interrogated'. So long from your friendly 349th

- Heavy Weapons Crew

By Dana Eugene Creasy (Deecee322) on Unrecorded Date:

Several points. First, Brenda is quite right regarding torture in the Vietnam war being on both sides. The south routinely used "Tiger Cages" to hold POWs. Further, there were many instances of torture used on POWs by South Viets, mostly, however, on Viet Cong, who were, by the way, NOT regular soldiers, nor generally citizens of the North, but irregular guerillas (as opposed to regular guerillas?). A minor point, but technically they were torturing their own citizens who were rebelling against their government.

Second, there were atrocities committed on both sides in War Two, as well as Korea and in many other wars. My own great-great-great-great uncle was captured by the British at the Battle of Long Island, tortured and then executed enmass with several hundred others.

Regarding the SS, while I do not want to in any way appear to be an apologist for what has been legally branded by international law as a "criminal organization", there were some real soldiers in it, who respected the rules of warfare (as if there can BE any rules in warfare) and acted in a correct manner at all times. Kurt Meyer ("Panzer" Meyer) was one in particular. Otto Skorzeny, of Mussolini rescue fame, had several general officers, including Georgie Patton, testify in his defense after the war. In general, however, the main difference was between the Waffen-SS and the Allegemeine-SS. The Waffen-SS (or "armed" SS) was organized as military units and, in general, acted as such. Many war movies mistakenly show the SS runes collar patch on SS men committing atrocities, when a large number of such acts were committed by the SD (Sicherheitsdienst or security service), who would have worn a blank right collar patch, or by Einsatzgruppen (Action Troops) who followed the Army into Russia for the express purposed of liquidating Jews, Communists, Commissars, etc. Again, these were mainly Allegemeine SS or SD troops who would not have worn the SS patch on the right collar. That is all semantics, though. In my business, however, the details will kill you. We try to get it right, but often times either the costumer doesn't know, there is no techical advisor or someone just doesn't care. If you watch The Holocaust mini-series, you will see quite correct uniforms throughout, including Waffen-SS, SD, Allegemeine-SS, Wehrmacht (which technically included all armed forces... the Army (Heer) Air Force (Luftwaffe), Navy (Kriegsmarine), etc.).

On to the greater issue of the discussion. Hauptsturmfuhrer (Captain) Steiner was most definitely guilty of illegal behavior regarding the treatment of the store clerk. Segregating prisoners for no reason (other than punishment as in the Kooler in Hogan's Heroes) was not permitted, especially if it was meant to be used as a torture or terror method. This is not to say that officers were not routinely separated from "other ranks" (the quaint British term for Enlisted Men), as they were. His other actions were more overt, although you supposedly see some compassion when you see him allow Doc to minister to his wounds.

I think one of the greatest episodes depicting the typical German soldier was when Saunders escaped by wearing a German uniform, faking a wound (even though wounded to a small degree) and ended up being protected by a German Sergeant in a ditch when a squad of GIs attacked. This German thought Saunders was a fellow national, wounded, trying to continue the fight and took pity upon him and tried his best to protect him. When Saunders had to kill him, the look on both men's faces said more about the futility of war than anything ever said before.

Finally, if anyone has any doubts about atrocities committed on our side, forget about the front lines, or even behind the lines. Has anyone ever heard of St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, DC? Therein lies a tale of atrocities committed in the name of National Security by the US Government during the war. More on it if anyone want to hear... just ask.

Love the group... thanks for your feedback.

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

War is definately hell. Rules can be drawn up and agreed to, but once the actual battle is in full force, both sides will often "throw away the book" to get what they want. I believe that there was probably some Americans who were cruel to German POWS, but this is never shown on Combat. I was very shocked on The Raider when I though that Saunders' anxiety to get Hanley back had finally forced him to really get rough with his prisoners. But, it all turned out to be a big trick in the end.
Regarding what you said, HWC, I agree with you partly. That German officer seemed to despise the young grocery clerk and therefore almost got enjoyment from beating him. However, this was not completely without cause because he was hoping that Saunders would finally spill over time if the clerk was continued to be beaten. I also find it very interresting that the German respected Doc's medical situation, and never touched him during Doc's "questioning" like he did the others. A large contrast to the the German in The Hostages. I always wondered why the German in Thr Long Way Home allowed Doc to tend the grocery clerk's wounds. He definately wasn't a big humanitarian. Perhaps he just preferred other methods of torture to the kind used in A Rare Vintage against Hanley.
BTW, I have a question. I love Combat but am very ignorant of the facts surrounding the show. Were officers treated better or worse for their rank by the Germans, or did it just depend on the circumstances? For instance, what if Hanley would have been captured as well on The Long Way Home. Being an officer, would he have been slapped around along with the rest, beaten worse than the rest, or given special treatment. Some war shows suggest that officers get very good treatment if captured. Like on The Prisoner and the German tells Braddock that many enlisted men have faked being an officer for kinder treatment. But, I have read books that say just the opposite. The only Combat that I can think of when Hanley and his men are captured together is Survival. In that episode he is treated just like the others.
Hazelnut

By Dana Eugene Creasy (Deecee322) on Unrecorded Date:

Keep in mind that the Oberkommando des Wehrmacht (the German Military High Command or OKW) assigned responsibility for allied prisoners to the Luftwaffe, primarily because most of the early prisoners were fliers shot down.

In general, the Luftwaffe officers behaved, in their phrase, "very correct" towards allied officers. Officer prisoners were not required to work, as were enlisted prisoners (permittable under the Geneva Convention as long as they were paid and it was not in war-related industries, such as our use of German and Italian prisoners in the midwest to work on farms). Officers were also segregated (again, permitted). Thus, several problems with movies and shows. Hogan's Heroes would not have had a full bull Colonel living in the same barracks with a bunch of enlisted men. Watch two movies for realism, "The Great Escape" which fairly accurately depicts conditions and behavior of Luftwaffe personnel (they considered themselves, like all nations' air forces, "a cut above" the common soldier) and "Stalag 17". In the former, all prisoners are officers; in the latter, all prisoners are enlisted men, and both were fairly accurate in the portrayal of the camps. Ironically, "Stalag 17" was the basis for "Hogan's Heroes", which took tremendous liberties with accuracy.

Finally, the Gestapo (which, although part of the SS High Command was not normally staffed with SS officers and those that were VERY rarely wore a uniform, unlike Major Hochstetter) has been known to have taken allied prisoners and placed them in Concentration Camps with other political, criminal and just plain old unsociable prisoners (Jews, Gypsies, etc.), usually for several escape attempts or some other crimes against the German State. This was definitely in violation of the Geneva Convention, by the way, although by way of justification, if the POW in question committed a criminal act, they were subject to the laws of the detaining nation. In their mind, therefore, it was perfectly legal.

The Japanese kept prisoners together, for the most part. The David Lean film "Bridge On the River Kwai" explained the same "Officers do not work" policy, albeit from the British CO protesting to the Japanese Commandant. Again, the Japanese seemed to be more flagrant in violation of the Geneva Accords, due in large part to their general belief against surrender (it was shameful and brought dishonor upon one's family, hence the ritual Hari Kiri of senior officers when all was lost). Early allied prisoners shot down, especially those during the 1942 Doolittle Raid over Tokyo were actually beheaded publically, as they were held in extreme contempt for surrendering or allowing themselves to be captured.

Hope that sheds some light on the officer vs. enlisted prisoner situation. Phew! This is getting to be a fulltime job! LOL

By Nancy LionStorm (349hvywpnscrew) on Unrecorded Date:

Hi again Hazelnut and Dana!

The SS captain only seems magnanimous. If you take yet another look at "The Long Way Home" you'll see that Cpt. Steiner's tortures Doc in a most subtle way. Steiner allows Doc to tend to Gates, but he doesn't let Doc have access to his medical kit in order to actually treat Gates! Thus, Doc is reduced to only taking Gates' pulse and checking his pupils for evidence of shock. Think about how helpless Doc must feel under the circumstances. To be allowed to examine Gates, but not allowed to relieve his suffering. For a man like Doc it must be pure torture, and Steiner is obviously well aware of this. Surely this is yet another example of Steiner's uncalled for cruelty.

Also, men who are effective at torture, and assigned to such positions, are usually good at their job because they ENJOY it. I'm no historian, but from what I've seen and read, the SS tended to attract individuals who easily objectified other human beings and considered specific groups of people as non- or less than- fully human. Individuals like this easily execute and torture those not of their own (fully human) kind.

Steiner's sarcasm, his contempt, his ingenious forms of torture (both subtle and overt) are enough evidence for me to conclude that Steiner isn't merely doing a dirty job that has to get done.

By Lyne Tremblay (Lyne) on Unrecorded Date:

Not only effective at torture, but Steiner displays a frightening adaptability when it comes to doing it. Don't forget all of the American soldiers already in the compound, limping, broken, and left there just to give Saunders and HIS men an inkling of what is going to come to them later on. They all look scared to death. Steiner is the most frightening character in all Combat, to me. Right from the first time he's on the scene, what does he do? Comes to look at this new group of prisoners. He looks at each individually, Saunders, Rankin, Billy, Gates, Cole, etc. He appraises them, studies them, searches out their weaknesses. His smug expression shows how much he's looking forward to "crushing" each one at his future leisure... He has a method: The strongest, the weakest, where are they?? That's why both Gates and Saunders are taken away together the first time. The beating of Saunders is done simply to cool Steiner's rage, to satisfy him and for no other reason.
There's a great scene in the beginning,as the Americans are walked into the compound. Steiner, smoking his cigarette, locking eyes with Saunders behind the fence. These men understand each other very well. Chilling.
Lyne

By Nancy LionStorm (349hvywpnscrew) on Unrecorded Date:

You got it, Lyne! And even before Steiner picks out Saunders and Gates for his special attention he already begins tormenting the prisoners.

The squad has just completed a long, forced march with little rest and no water (as per Steiner's instructions to his men). That in and of itself might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that they are also exhausted after adrenaline rush of battle. Add to that demoralizing fact of defeat. So what is the very first thing that Steiner does? He pours an entire glass of wine onto the ground in front of the hot, tired and thirst G.I.s. This guy obviously has a natural instinct for the job. So long from your friendly 349th

- Heavy Weapons Crew

By Diane M. Judy (Djudy) on Unrecorded Date:

This has been very interesting reading. It answered a lot of my questions. Especially about the SS. I am relatively new to this site. How does Dana know so much military information?

By Rose Ann Schrock (Carbine) on Unrecorded Date:

Hi there HWC and Lyne,
I agree with you both. Took the time out today to really watch this episode thoroughly. All truth be known, I had never really watched this episode as closely as the others. I had never even seen the opening sequence in part 2 when Hanley and Billy are talking! I felt sorry for him because he seemed so helpless in the situation. Now that I've studied the German officer carefully, I find that I agree with you both. He seems to read right through Saunders, into his very soul. He knows that beating the grocery clerk will hurt Saunders more than beating him. He is without a doubt the the most chilling, and IMHO the best portrayed German ever on Combat. He really leaves a lasting impression that's for sure. Vic Morrow plays well off him too. Just another angle on the show: would Saunders have "cracked" if the German would have tortured one of his buddies (Caje, Kirby, Doc, Billy, Littlejohn, even someone like Hanley) had been on the German's recieving end?
I know that on Combat it is important that the stars never give in, but about reality? Could you expect a person, even one as tough as Saunders, to watch and hear a friend in agony? Humans have their limits. And how would the German have dealt with Hanley. Could he have seen through him the same as he did Saunders? Would the Lt. have talked if faced with the gocery clerk being beaten or perhaps Saunders? Fan Fiction like Bond of Honor and even parts of Jo. D's Cocktails For Two deal with these issues.
Hazelnut

By Dana Eugene Creasy (Deecee322) on Unrecorded Date:

How do I know so much military information? Recall, if you will, the scene in "Patton" when he is pitching his plan for the invasion of Sicily. After reciting, and directly quoting, participants in the Peloponesian Wars in the 5th Century BC as to how Siracusa (Syracuse) was the key to Sicily, and thence all of Italy, Air Vice Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder said to Georgie Patton, "General, you sound as if you actually lived in the 5th century". To which General Patton replied, "But I did, Sir Arthur, I did...".

Take it with or without a grain of salt, but this explanation, in the immortal words of Chevy Chase in Caddyshack, "Sounds good to me, Judge." LOL

By Patricia Sewell (Patsewell) on Unrecorded Date:

As for better treatment for officers over enlisted men as prisoners, the American Air Force actually promoted all of their enlisted personnel on their bombers to the rank of sergeant when they discovered that the Germans treated them better than those men of lower rank.

By Brenda Koehler (Jasmine) on Unrecorded Date:

Great discussion on whether Steiner was a sadist, but for me, the worst people in the Third Reich were the millions of who detached themselves from their feelings in the name of duty or authority, rather than the ones who wallowed in the pleasure of other people's suffering.
I don't think that Steiner tortured his prisoners for personal satisfaction. Even if he were disposed to enjoy it, he wouldn't have allowed himself the pleasure. He was too committed to the concept of "soldiering" with its overtones of sacrificing personal desires and needs to the advancement of a higher cause.
Steiner despises Gates as a person of no consequence (grocery clerk!) because he sees no allegiance in him to anything beyond himself, and he admires Saunders for trying to arouse some spark of compunction in him at their first meeting. Steiner tells Saunders they will talk of soldiering back at the compound, and when they do the conversation centers on just where allegiance to principle and self-preservation part company, concepts Steiner comprehensively understands.
Steiner believes in suborndinating himself to a cause. He is glad his cousin can be of some use to the Reich, and on his own behalf he is focused, calculating, and intrepid. The Germans were told by their government that when pity interfered with their objectives, it was weakness to surrender to it. Steiner believes this and he tells Saunders so. ("Compassion is a weakness.") Steiner is able to torture remorselessly because he has suppressed his personal feelings to more easily accomplish his goals and he is proud of this victory over himself. He is not impulsive. All his decisions are engineered by logic and common sense. He assessed the group and chose the route to information (Saunders through Gates) that he thought would require the least time and effort. The beatings of Caje and Saunders are traditional measures to reinforce group discipline by punishing offenders. Everything is done with a logical purpose in mind.
Although a few people did torture for pleasure within the Third Reich and were tolerated, they were disliked by their fellow soldiers and their instability jeopardized the efficiency of their operations. The commandant of Treblinka who was a true sadist was reported to the authorities by one of his own non-coms for poor management and general disorder and was transferred to the eastern front. For a dedicated professional soldier like Steiner, the thought of gratifying personal appetites on the job would be an appalling self-indulgence, and a stumbling block to efficiency. Its these people, the millions of "good soldiers" who were able to disconnect from their consciences to carry out their orders who are truly frightening.

By Nancy LionStorm (349hvywpnscrew) on Unrecorded Date:

What you say is very interesting, Jasmine. In contrast to Steiner there is Lt. Herlmoch in "The Brothers". This officer does not display sly smirks or gloating grins the way Steiner does. And while Hermloch does have both brothers whipped, he nevertheless expresses shock, disbelief and horror when Leon kills his brother Marcel. Likewise in "Barrage" Gunnar vigorously slaps the wounded Saunders without expressing any satisfaction whatsoever. For these two men brutal acts are part of their jobs and they embody what you wrote about.

Steiner hides behind those sentiments. War criminals spout philosophical and political beliefs to support their sick inclinations. Steiner may or may not be consciously aware of his sadistic nature, but that is irrelevant. Hermloch and Gunnar are truer examples of what you were writing about. So long from your friendly 349th Heavy Weapons Crew

By Brenda Koehler (Jasmine) on Unrecorded Date:

Well, you are right, HWC. I watched this tape and Steiner's inscrutable air of private amusement and often barely contained rages are not the most reassuring evidences of mental health. Richard Basehart does a great job, playing a man whose inner disturbance has erased recognition of limits and who communicates a terrifying sense that anything is possible. I just think its misleading to mainly establish a connection between war (especially WWII) atrocities and this type of dramatically deranged character, when the great majority of atrocities were committed by undistinguished mundane rational people, who always protested later that they were just doing their jobs/following orders. This is actually the type of person I was trying to present in my previous post, although I can see Steiner is too kinky to fit.