Deserters in WWII

[WJHopwood]

A new book was released in June to favorable reviews on
a subject seldom covered by WWII historians, or mentioned
in groups such as this one. Titled "The Deserters--A Hidden
History of World War II" it was written by Charles Glass a
former war correspondent with ABC news. According to a
recent review in The Wall Street Journal, the book makes the
following interesting observations and, perhaps, some
controversial conclusions, as resulr of the author's
extensive research:

1. There were 50,000 U.S. and 100,000 British soldiers who
deserted during WWII.

2. Deserters were not always "the cowards of popular
assumption but often "rational men making a natural choice
to stay alive," some of whom had previously been decorated
for acts of bravery in action but after prolonged periods of
continuing combat had reached a breaking point.

3. Punishment for desertion varied widely depending on
the armed forces of individual countries. Of the 50,000
known American deserters who were apprehended, only
one, was executed, Private "Eddie" Slovik. Forty-nine others
were sentenced to death but the sentences were never
carried out. In the Soviet Union, 13,500 were executed
for "cowardice and desertion" by the NKVD.

4. Although the U.S. executed only one soldier for desertion,
70 other soldiers were executed for a variety of other crimes,
55 of whom were black.

5. Desertions in the Pacific theater were almost non-existent.
inasmuch as there was nowhere for a deserter to go.

6, What was commonly referred to as "cowardice" during WWII
could in today's U.S. armed forces be considered "post-traumatic
stress syndrome."

In summarizing, it was noted that the author had selected the
following quote from the 1954 book "The Execution of Private
Slovik," to set the above poinrs in a perspective which
also reflects the view of those not in sympathy with light
treatment of deserters, either during WWII or a decade later,
regardless of the motivation:
"If a sound-bodied, sound-minded American soldier who
deserts his comrades on the eve of battle deserves only
comfortable detention, subsequent pardon, and a college
education under the GI Bill of Rights, then why should a man
ever again risk death in combat for this country,"

Anybody read the book? Any comments on the book or its
topic matter?

WJH

[Michael Emrys]

Post by WJHopwood
Anybody read the book? Any comments on the book or its
topic matter?

Haven't read the book, but the author has a shortened version in the
current issue of _World War II_ magazine that makes those same points in
virtually the same words.

Michael

[dumbstruck]

I think there were more interesting stories behind the
considerable number of German, Soviet, French, and Italian
deserters.

The German and Russian deserters came at a stage when their
borders were being overrun and leadership was broken down.
The leadership was overwhelmed by the enemy, but did find
the time to have supposed deserters hunted down and killed.

The French and Italians had periods of loyalty changeover,
which led to interesting varieties of desertion.

[David Wilma]

The book about Slovik was written by William Bradford
Huie whose journalism career was tarnished by his
paying for interviews. It's been years since I read the
Slovik book, but I think the story and his conclusions
need to be examined more closely. There were
journalists who produced "histories" of World War II
such as the Saburo Sakai autobiography by Martin
Caidin and the W.L. White books. Some sold the rights
to their books to Hollywood.

[Henry]

Post by WJHopwood
A new book was released in June to favorable reviews on
a subject seldom covered by WWII historians, or mentioned
in groups such as this one. Titled "The Deserters--A Hidden
History of World War II" it was written by Charles Glass a
former war correspondent with ABC news. According to a
recent review in The Wall Street Journal, the book makes the
following interesting observations and, perhaps, some
controversial conclusions, as resulr of the author's
1. There were 50,000 U.S. and 100,000 British soldiers who
deserted during WWII.
2. Deserters were not always "the cowards of popular
assumption but often "rational men making a natural choice
to stay alive," some of whom had previously been decorated
for acts of bravery in action but after prolonged periods of
continuing combat had reached a breaking point.
3. Punishment for desertion varied widely depending on
the armed forces of individual countries. Of the 50,000
known American deserters who were apprehended, only
one, was executed, Private "Eddie" Slovik. Forty-nine others
were sentenced to death but the sentences were never
carried out. In the Soviet Union, 13,500 were executed
for "cowardice and desertion" by the NKVD.

And how many were killed by being forced into punishment battalions were
they were typically given the suicide missions, like initial attacks
against well-prepared enemy forces? These battalions were typically
"stiffened" by ruthless men with machine guns that were on their own
side and that were going to shoot them if they failed to advance (or
advance quickly enough). I've seen these mentioned in many accounts and
understand that survival rates were very low. I suspect those battalions
would account for many more that just 13,500 victims.

Post by WJHopwood
4. Although the U.S. executed only one soldier for desertion,
70 other soldiers were executed for a variety of other crimes,
55 of whom were black.
5. Desertions in the Pacific theater were almost non-existent.
inasmuch as there was nowhere for a deserter to go.
6, What was commonly referred to as "cowardice" during WWII
could in today's U.S. armed forces be considered "post-traumatic
stress syndrome."
In summarizing, it was noted that the author had selected the
following quote from the 1954 book "The Execution of Private
Slovik," to set the above poinrs in a perspective which
also reflects the view of those not in sympathy with light
treatment of deserters, either during WWII or a decade later,
"If a sound-bodied, sound-minded American soldier who
deserts his comrades on the eve of battle deserves only
comfortable detention, subsequent pardon, and a college
education under the GI Bill of Rights, then why should a man
ever again risk death in combat for this country,"
Anybody read the book? Any comments on the book or its
topic matter?
WJH