Talk:Robert C. Richardson III

message: Just a comment: I read in the article that he clearly saw four U-boats with red cross flags actually rescueing survivors... and still he gave the order to attack. I know that considering the geneva convention it's not a war crime to attack an enemy military vessel, but if one of the U-boats is crowded with hundreds of civilians, you must be pretty cold to start bombing it. And since he was in a bomber, the U-boat was no real treat to him. So the order of Karl Donitz not to rescue survivors anymore is pretty solid. Ironically, he spend 10 years in prison for that... Makes much sense.
: Actually Richardson was on the ground in a control tower, not in a bomber or even near the scene. .--Jackyd101 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: This is not a whitewashing of the affair but an attempt at a balanced description of events from Gen Richardson's perspective. I could have easily left this part of his life unsaid; but from a historical lessons' learned point of view, the affair highlights a number of items that are still relevant in today’s discussions on the rules of war. Besides, General Richardson regularly recounted the story, not only from his perspective, but also from the German perspective once he learned the full story in 1963 when Leonce Peillard interviewed him for THE LACONIA AFFAIR book. Peillard had spent a great deal of effort in finding the source of the "bombers" that had attacked the u-boats, finding the source only after the US/British declassified the incident in early 1960s. After he published his book, Peillard arranged a party in Paris of all the incident's surviving participants; so they could share the whole story that they were all part of.
The “Laconia AFFAIR” is a controversial incident from the early days of world war 2 that set the precedent for the subsequent unrestricted submarine warfare for not only the German navy, but also for the allied navies.  The on-going controversy comes from the level of required assistance and/or protection that military forces must afford non-combatants in war at sea. A Google Search of “Laconia Affair” returns 10 pages of links highlighting one international bestseller and numerous articles on the subject. It raises the following points of study for not only military historians but also practitioners of war and peace to consider.
* What to do with regard to non-combatants during military combat operations at sea?
* Minor tactical decisions made on both sides can and do set precedents with current and future strategic level impact. 
* In war, there are no “Black or White” answers, only grey ones made with a minimal set of facts in the heat of battle.
I think my brief summary of the affair properly captures the following facts for readers of Wikipedia to learn from and make up their own minds as to whether or not the actions taken on both sides were right or wrong. 
* On 12 Sept 1942, Werner Hartenstein commanding the German Navy U-156 sighted and sank the 19,700-ton British Cunard White Star passenger liner Laconia, serving as a troopship
* The unescorted but armed Laconia was carrying 1,800 Italian POWs guarded by 103 prisoner guards (Free Poles) and 268 British military personnel from Desert War in Egypt.
* Hartenstein discovering that the Laconia was carrying Italian POWs from North Africa decided on his own initiative to launch rescue operations, to broadcast in the blind “cease fire” broadcast, and to inform and seek approval of his decision from  Berlin. He did so either out of concerned “that the accidental killing and stranding of so many Italian soldiers could cause a serious political rupture in the Axis high command," and/or for deeply felt humanitarian consideration 
* The German Senior level leadership (Naval and National) requested the Vichy French to send warships from Dakar and/or the Ivory Coast to to pick up the survivors, but rejected Hartenstein cease fire proposal, in part because
•• Hitler in his rage had directed that no word of the Laconia sinking or the proposed Axis rescue be transmitted to the Allies
•• Admiral Raeder did not think it wise to enter into a "deal" with the untrustworthy Allies
•• Nothing was to interfere with Eisbär's surprise attack on Cape Town to strike at the supplies destined for the British and Soviets
* The British in Freetown intercepted this message, but believing it might be a ruse de guerre, refused to credit it or to act.
* The Vinchy French in response to Berlin's request sent the 7,500-ton Vichy French cruiser Gloire from Dakar, and two sloops, the fast 650-ton Annamite and the slower 2,000-ton Dumont d'Urville, from Conakry, French Guinea, and Cotonou, Dahomey, respectively
* The Allies, specifically the United States, had gone to great effort to establish an airfield on Ascension as a critical link in their only air route between the United States and Desert War in Egypt. This was a secret airfield and its loss would have shutoff the critically needed supply of medium bombers to British forces in Egypt and to the Soviets forces in Russia. This is why Then Captian Richardson's squadron of P-39s and five B-25 Mitchell bombers were assigned to protect the airfield.  
* Then Captain Richardson ordered the bombing of the submarine, based on his assessment of the overall military situation and the importance of his protecting Ascension Island as critical link in the US aerial resupply of the British and Soviet war efforts in Egypt and Russia, respectfully
* As a result of the aerial attack, Hartenstein and, subsequently, the Vichy French abandoned the rescue operations due to their perceived threat from unknown allied source(s).
* This chain of events led to the death of well over half of the Laconia's passengers (British, Italian, and Free Pole) and crew.
Besides General Richardson's USAF Oral History, I pulled these facts from the following sources,  
* Excerpt from “THE HUNTED, 1942-1945” (Random House, November 1998) that continues Clay Blair's history of German submarine warfare in the Second World War. 
* THE LACONIA AFFAIR, by Leonce Peillard, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1963 (Reprinted 1983) and a bestseller published in 10+ languages. , 9780553230703.  
* "Origin of the Laconia Order" article by Dr Mauer Maurer and Lawrence Paszezk, Air University Review, March-April 1964
If you want to read other perspectives about this affair see
* Morality discussion on Laconia Affair from “Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations” by Michael Walzer - 
* A summary of the strategic military situation the Allies were in 1942 with regard to North Africa, the Mediterranean sea lanes, and Atlantic U-Boat campaign from “War at Sea” by Nathan Miller
crossrich (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I added the "Laconia Affair" Section 

message: Some above have suggested my edits has been a whitewash of events, especially of the Laconia Affair. In truth I have strived to follow the Wikipdia policy of biographies of living persons. I have sought out and used verifiable sources to build out General Richardson’s official U.S. Air Force biography (http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6901).  I used the below listed sources to flesh-out the sections of this wiki biography of Gen Richardson’s long and eventful military and Air Power career.  --crossrich (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Breakdown of Each Section 

message: 'The German navy had notified the British authorities of the rescue operations, but the British thought it was a trick and did not communicate it to the U.S. forces at the secret Wideawake Airfield on Ascension.' If the information was not passed to Capt. Richardson which rescue operation did he think he was providing air cover for?
'Capt Richardson, not knowing that this was a Red Cross  sanctioned German rescue operation....' Regardless of whether Richardson believed this to be officially sanctioned or not the facts as reported to him spoke for themselves; a uboat covered in many more people than it would ever carry operationally (that negated its fighting ability), towing lifeboats crowded with people, with its weaponry covered in an international symbol of humanitarian mission. Strangely enough Hartenstein did not vascilitate over the official sanctioning before dragging survivors out of the water.
'and based on his tactical assessment of the potential threat that the U-boats posed to the en-route, unarmed British rescue ships....' the rescue ships that were looking for boatloads of survivors? perhaps he might have considered that these might be the same survivors in lifeboats his orders led to being bombed.
'and that the u-boats could discover and shell the airfield and its vulnerable fuel tanks, thus cutting off this critical allied air route; Captain Richardson ordered the B-24 crew to "bomb the sub".....' Some would argue that the ability to calculate the bitter equations of war without concern for individuals is what makes a good military commander (think Haig, Bomber Harris etc) but Hartenstein was very effective in his duties and still displayed humanitarian concern on a number of occasions apart from the Laconia. 
'After the (unsuccessful) attack ordered by Richardson, German U-boats were ordered by German navy command stopped all rescue operations and depart the area. A majority of survivors were later rescued by British merchant ships and two unarmed Vichy French warships, the cruiser Gloire and the sloop Annamite, out of Dakar, Africa.[4]' Only U156 was ordered to cease rescue operations; the others were told to be ready to cease if coming under enemy attack.
Neilpendo (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns re revisionist rationale for bombing 

message: Regarding possible violations of the laws of war at sea
See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague10.asp
Hague convention of 1907, article 16
"After every engagement, the two belligerents, so far as military interests permit, shall take steps to look for the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded, and to protect them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill treatment."
Richardsons actions were in violation of article 16 regardless of any other circumstances.
The United States is in violation of article 21 by not bringing Richardson before a court.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstenutz (talk • contribs) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert C. Richardson III's actions in the Laconia incident was indubitably a war crime. Not according to some second or third rate historians but based on testimonies from the British survivors from the incident, which can be heard and seen in the Documentary on the Atlantic Submarine Battle of World War 2, named "U Boat War". They are, what is called primary sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.118.126.254 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

text: If we are to trust nationalists like Crossrich, the following did not hapen: In the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre, a written order from the HQ of the 328th U.S. Army Infantry Regiment, dated 21 December 1944, stated: No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight. Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes#United_States  The Abu Graib incident did not happen. The population of My Lai committed suicide. Etc. 181.118.126.254 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: War crimes 

message: Would an interview with Robert C. Richardson from 1986 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_4263A6DEAEC84E01A528C0238EC628B7 (I helped with the site, so it would be conflict of interest for me to just add it.) Mccallucc (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to interview on nuclear policy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert C. Richardson III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311033905/http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm to http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified