Battlefire

Battlefire t1_ixv2fzg wrote

Except no criminal court will prosecute something like that. It is ignorance to think that you have an obligation to save an enemy and put yourself in danger. You get more people killed that way.

−2

Battlefire t1_ixu08v2 wrote

You don't seem to understand the circumstances of navel warfare. You have limited resources on ships. It isn't just because there could be enemy vessels in the area. It is you don't have the supply and logistics to keep all those pows. Saving you own is the priority. Unfortunately, leaving behind stranded enemies was what was normal during that war. You save your own with the limited supplies you have. Trying to save stranded enemies is dangerous. And can be a problem to feed more mouths and give medical care. Which will deplete your supplies.

And again, there were many instances where they don't even rescue their own men because of the risks. Sunken ships are the perfect bait for submarines.

It is the same reason why the 101st airborne shot German POW's, They are airborne and behind enemy lines with limited supplies and manpower. They do not have the luxury to babysit the pows who will slow them down. And letting them go would just add more meat for their enemies around them. It is the nature of war.

−5

Battlefire t1_ixthpe9 wrote

For saving enemies of sunken ships, it is very rare in the war because of the risk of coming across submarines or other combatant vessels. Even trying to save your own boys is major risk. Here, the IJN saw high risks of saving those pows.

−6