Teddy Rosevellt is one of My favorate presidents, but did he really slit the throat of a German Prisoner of War at San Juan Hill? If so he should have been brought up on charges. The German had already surrenderd, and was no threat. Wasn't their articals of war?
Our last message to you is, "Live as You please!"-Dessert
As far as everything I have read about the war, there were no German advisors with the Spanish during the war.
shareAs far as the movie went, TR did not slit the German's throat. B.F. Goodrich (played by Titus Welliver) ordered "Indian Bob" to do it.
shareEven if he did? So what. All German bastards (in this time period) deserved to die. If there were German advisors during the Spanish-American War, no wonder they got involved in the Spanish Civil War in 1937.
share Well thank you Mr. Holier than thou. What a sign of civility to judge an entire nation of people with one broad stroke. "All German bastards (in this time peoriod) deserived to die." Your about as narrow-minded as Hitler, and King Abdulla, who believed that all jews deserve to die.I guess that you think that all Germans in WW2 deserved to die. Now where whould that put Oscar Schlinder, and Albert Einstine, both Germans. You must learn to open your mind befoure you open your mouth.
*Forever Cho Chang Fan*
Cho's story continues at: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1552296/1/
NO, atleast not as you are thinking, as it took WWI, (20 yrs later) to end, and then the countries started hammering out universal rules of conduct in war, top on the list where prisoners, length of bayonets,gas,wounded etc. What teddy did was still in the heat of battle, and no court would touch it back then, he killed the enemy fro what he percieved as a threat either present or future. Many soldiers killed the enemy after the so called battles where over, even in WWII, angered troops would lash out at prisoners that where being rounded up, it's easy to say it's wrong, but the things that goes through a mans mind whith so much killing around is hard to know, Like the first mate on the pequode in Mobey Dick? "Stop killin?" but sir, our blood is up, from all this killin'and when a mans blood is up from killin, why he doesn,t even realize he's killin!" I guess you got to be in the middle of it to see the logic.
EJD III
Say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shareIt was someone else in the movie that yelled " Kill the German". Roosevelt was up in front calling them cowards for not charging with him. And no, the Geneva Convention happened many, many years later. ( After WWI ? ) Besides, do you really want to charge a defended hill while leaving an enemy behind you, with a Maxim machine gun?
share Two men could have been relagated to take him back to a secured area as a Prisonor of War. There were plenty of men left for the charge.
*Forever Cho Chang Fan*
Cho's story continues at: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1552296/1/
Reality check anyone? This is a Hollywood movie. Check out and investigate the facts. Just because you saw it on TNT, does not mean it happened. Since you are on the internet to be on this site, do a search on the battle and the people involved. Probably half of the characters in this movie are fictional or were never there during the war. You could also do it the old fashioned way and go to your local library. I have read numerous non-fiction books on the Spanish-American War. Not one of these have mentioned this incident. A couple of these books were written by pro-spanish writers.
Don't get me wrong. I love this movie, however like any movie there is a big difference between truth and fiction. The History Channel used to have a show called History vs Hollywood. It would compare a popular war movie vs what actually happened. Very cool show.
I guess the sad thing is that there are people out there that think pro wrestling is real.....
[deleted]
[deleted]
Better yet tie his ass up and collect him later.
share[deleted]
It is AMAZING the stupidity that comes out in these threads. Tie him up? Detail 2 men to watch him? The MORON who started this thread clearly did not even watch the scene in question since TR had nothing to do with killing the German. Back then, it really depended on the commander on whether you accepted a surrender or not. BUT if you did you did NOT kill him unless he tried something. That was accepted practice by us and the European countries. Now of course there were incidents of prisoners being killed; that happens in all wars in all armies. Its just a matter of how often and whether anything is done about it. The US military usually investigates everything= sometimes to a ridiculous degree- so I frankly say that no army in the world has a better record then we do. At least no MAJOR army. This film was great in that it captured the atmosphere and the spirit of the times and charactors involved. And that is what matters.
share[deleted]
The first Hague Convention was signed in July 1899 but there were established rules of war in existence before that. Civilised nations tried to fight their wars in civilised fashion. But the Spanish and Americans haven't ever been noted for their adherence to humanitarian behaviour.
shareI've read Roosevelt's autobiographical volume of his roll in the Spanish American War and he makes no mention of observing German advisers during the battle for Santiago. I have also read more than a dozen biographies about TR, not all of them laudatory, and not one mentions Germans advisers at the Battle of San Juan Heights.
shareThese troops were not surrendering after losing battle. The battle was still on going under these conditions even now a days rules are subjective to situation. Example: there is battle going on, you have just wounded an enemy so should you A) Tend his wounds take him prisoner (and same time take yourself out of action for undetermined time) B) Consider him no risk since he is wounded and carry on fighting elsewhere (also giving your wounded oppenent chance to shoot you in back) C) Shoot him again to make sure he is out of the picture. Personally I would shoot the bastard and not giving him any chance to kill me nor anybody else on my side of battle.
share
These troops were not surrendering after losing battle. The battle was still on going under these conditions even now a days rules are subjective to situation. Example: there is battle going on, you have just wounded an enemy so should you A) Tend his wounds take him prisoner (and same time take yourself out of action for undetermined time) B) Consider him no risk since he is wounded and carry on fighting elsewhere (also giving your wounded oppenent chance to shoot you in back) C) Shoot him again to make sure he is out of the picture. Personally I would shoot the bastard and not giving him any chance to kill me nor anybody else on my side of battle.
This is by far most sensible comment yet made in this whole miserable thread. I know I would never go into combat without extra ammo, topped off canteens and of course, my law books just in case .
...and of course, my law books just in case
What do the posters here know about what happened in 1945 when American GIs captured SS officers? They were routinely executed on the spot, after the news of Malmedy spread.
shareI agree with most posters that this is a non-issue, as there is absolutely *NO* evidence of German mercenaries being present at the Battle of San Juan Hill, but I have another question which intrigues me greatly: Why on Earth did the filmmakers include a scene that was unnecessary, historically-inaccurate and highly controversial to boot? And why Germans? Their depiction as stereotypical bad guys in films like this one or the pathetic 1985 version of "King Solomon's Mines" kind of annoy me.
shareMilius being Jewish and having a grudge against Germans? (Remember The Wind and the Lion too)
Trying to get an easily-recognizable bad guy into the mix?
One of those would be my guess.
"I just speak GOODER than you!"