Talk:Robert C. Richardson III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

So? Hitler wasn't in the gas chambers either. If this was doen by teh Germans, we'd still harp on about it. Disgraceful action which should be held to account one day.

I edited the Lanconia part since it looked very much like OR, was not provided with any sources and, most important in my eyes, clearly differs from what the 'Lanconia' artile says. The deleted part says, he was afraid of 'German Uboats shelling his airfield', which is kinda ridiculous and cannot be anything else than poor OR. If someone wants to have that in the article, please provide a source for that. As of my current knowledge, German Uboats didnt shell any allied airfields. It would be the certain death of the uboat without inflicting any possible damage thinking of the weaponry the German Uboats carried. -Nom- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.127.126.17 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It's Crossrich whitewashing this. Please provide a source for this. 119.119.216.116 (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist scum[edit]

It was a war crime clear as a bell. The fact that it wasn't prosecuted as a war crime is another criminal offense. A certain callow type keeps rewriting the war crimes of the english and americans out of existence, perverting history. These grubby individuals should be banned from Wikipedia as they can't differenciate between propaganda and fact. Maybe they work for Bush, maybe they just have a tiny cock, maybe both, in any case this incident was a clearly documented war crime and atrocity. Some clown wannabe coastguard reservist shouldn't be allowed to pervert history to suit his revisionist tendencies.

it was not a war crime since US won the war. So easy it can be...--Yikrazuul 11:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Allies committed war crimes as did the Soviets. But Germanys crimes will always take the cake.

I have removed the charges of Richardson being a war criminal because they were not cited and verified. patsw (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous for Robert C. Richardson III to have such a lengthy biography detailing his life's activities. He is a complete unknown except for his dubious orders in the Laconia incident. You certainly wouldn't see this in any other "encyclopedia." Incidentally, his thinking that U-boats could shell the airfield is absurd and this should be mentioned.--TL36 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the “revisionist scum” comment and whether then Capt Richardson’s actions were a “War Crime,” I would argue that these are unsubstantiated statements based on a causal reading of tertiary sourced histories and the application of 21st century media conscious rules of engagement on a 1943 air-naval engagement.

In 1943 the Axis forces were at their peak of power controlling continental Europe up to the gates of Moscow, the whole Mediterranean Sea, and North Africa (up to Egypt). They were winning the Battle of the Atlantic slowly starving Britain to death. It was airpower and convoys that finally defeated the U-boats. While there is much written to the human suffering caused by the Laconia sinking and subsequent events, only one book, Tony Bridgland’s 2002 “Waves of Hate: Naval Atrocities of the 2nd World War”, speaks directly to the war crime aspects of the Laconia Affair. Tony Bridgland (Pg 89-90) does not fault then Capt Richardson but the British authorities for not marking the Laconia as a POW transport and arranging safe passage with the Axis Powers. Of then Capt Richardson’s actions, he states:

“In war one must always beware of enemy duplicity. It was possible the apparently compassionate U-156 was nothing more than a decoy. Richardson justified the American action by saying ‘We were at war with Donitz. Nobody told us anything about Hartenstein’s message. We knew nothing of this until after the war (1963). I consulted with my deputy, Col Ronan, and we came to the conclusion that our duty was to sink the enemy.’” (Tony Bridgland’s 2002 “Waves of Hate: Naval Atrocities of the 2nd World War” Pg 90)

The Laconia Affair has long been of interest to students of naval and international law and the complete story with regard to B-24 bomber attack took until 1964, after Peillard’s “Laconia Affair” to come together. First was Doenizt’s Nurrenberg Trial and subsequent biography. Second was Captain S W Roskill’s 1st Feb 1959 London Times Article “Mystery of U.S. Plan’s Attack.” Third was Leonce Peillard’s 1963 French, then International bestseller “The Laconia Affair.” The book led General Richardson to write Peillard about his role in the affair, this led to Peillard hosting a party of all the survivors of the affair. This resulted in a 1963 European headline of “I ordered the bombing of the submarine, chuckled the general.” (London Express & Paris Le Mode)

The actions and motivations of then Capt Richardson were not thoroughly researched and document until 1964 when Dr Mauer Maurer (USAF Historian) and Lawrence Paszezk Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939–1945) in their Air University Review, March-April 1964 article "Origin of the Laconia Order" sought to answer where the attacking B-24 bomber came from and why. General Richardson took full credit for the decision in his 1964 interview with Dr Mauer Mauer.

If there is any historical revision going on, it is the personal opinions of the above commentators, unsupported by the many detailed historical documentaries past and present about this incident. Wikipedia is about documented facts, not personal opinion.

--crossrich (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you injecting so much personal opinion into something factual?
Red cross is flown, the internationally recognized sign that "this is a non combatant, attacking unless they attack you is an instant war crime" several messages put out on open channels, pilot contacted by HIS OWN ALLY to verify the source that there were POW's, women and children there and the germans made themselves clearly visible, establishing contact in multiple methods, and there were several lifeboats full of people that would have more than doubled the surface area of the ship and provided lots of wiggling, multicolored clearly not boat based parts. Are you suggesting the Germans hired 900 people to float around at sea so they could pretend to rescue them to trick the allies?
They intentionally ignored all the signs that were there and lots of people died because of it. It was about an hour between first contact and the actual attack, so the pilot had time to carefully observe and gather data. There was no split second decision. They realized they had an enemy target who was too swamped with non combatants to defend itself and wanted to try to take advantage of that. This makes them war criminals, and Richardson should and will eventually have his designation changed to dishonorable discharge. Its only a matter of time.
But, you heard the man, the things they understood then are indisputable fact. Since in 1930 it was widely accepted that black people were unequivocally not equal to whites and needed to be segregated, watched over and guided for their own protection, we cant question that with our new understanding. Everyone back then who thought that was right, regardless of how backwards and ignorant we view them today. That would be revisionist instead of hard facts. Please, sir, lead the way into downtown chicago to tell them they have to use the colored fountains. We'll all be cheering for you and your "historical integrity."
"Historical documentaries past and present" Oh you mean like "Naval Targeting: Lawful Objects of Attack by Sally V. Mallison* and W. Thomas Mallison**" page 255 from the US Navy's own War College that, even in 1991, called the commanders choices "Completely inexcusable" and includes the description of the primary sources' findings that:
"In 1960 the Historical Division of the u.s. Air Force stated concerning this incident: A summary of operations from Ascension Island states that on the morning of 16 September 1942, a B-24 of the u.S. Army Air Forces sighted a submarine at 5 degrees South, 11 degrees 40 minutes West. The sub, which was towing two lifeboats and was in the process of picking up two more, was displaying a white flag with a red cross. The sub did not show any national flag when challenged by the B-24. The plane left the scene and contacted Ascension. Since no friendly subs were known to be in the area, the plane was instructed to attack."
They knew it was a war crime in 1942, 1960, 1991, and we still know it today. Failure to sincerely prosecute means nothing, unless you also think My Lai was an attack against a deep cover entrenched enemy pretending to be children and elderly people, or that Eddie Gallagher killed a wounded teenager that a medic was treating out of self defense.
Your comments are so intellectually dishonest its sickening. People like you should be forced to identify themselves like the sex offenders of free thought. Ba18070 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I added the "Laconia Affair" Section[edit]

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. ISBN 0553230700, 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

crossrich (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Crossrich[reply]

Source Breakdown of Each Section[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 1 Early career

- Gen Richardson’s 1984 USAF Oral History interview
- Gen Richardson’s DD Form 204 and Air Force assignment history file

  • 2 On Ascension Island and 3 Laconia incident

- Gen Richardson’s 1984 USAF Oral History interviews
- Composite Force 8012 and 1st Composite Squadron unit histories
- Various 1943 AAF combat reports and U.S, Navy liaison after action reports gathered from the USAF Historical Center
- General Richardson’s personal correspondence files
- "Origin of the Laconia Order" by Dr Mauer Maurer and Lawrence Paszezk, Air University Review, March-April 1964
- “The Laconia Affair” Leonce Peillard (1963 English version) (http://www.amazon.com/Laconia-Affair-Leonce-Peillard/dp/0553230700)
- “Waves of Hate: Naval Atrocities of the 2nd World War” Tony Bridgland, 2002. (http://www.amazon.com/Waves-Hate-Naval-Atrocities-Second/dp/1557504393)
NOTE: All these references are either primary sources or secondary works based on cited primary sources.

  • 4 Back to the United States and onto Europe

- Gen Richardson’s 1984 USAF Oral History interviews
- Gen Richardson’s 1944-45 HQ TAC AIR IX duty dairy
- Gen Richardson’s official flight logs and records

  • 5 Evolving into a strategic long-range planner, 6 NATO years, 7 Atomic weapons and the evolution of theater nuclear warfare, and 8 Air Force system command and strategic acquisition development

Richardson’s official U.S. Air Force biography - Gen Richardson’s 1984 USAF Oral History interviews
- Gen Richardson’s personal correspondence files

  • 9 Defense policy consultant and learning to influence public policy, and 10 High Frontier and the space-based missile defense

- Gen Richardson’s 1984 USAF Oral History interviews
- General Richardson’s personal correspondence files
- LTG Daniel Graham’s autobiography and Paul Weyrich biography of LTG Graham

  • 11 Notable publications, 12 Awards and decorations, and 13 Flying record

- Richardson’s official U.S. Air Force biography
- Gen Richardson’s personal files
- Gen Richardson’s official flight logs and records

Concerns re revisionist rationale for bombing[edit]

'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)[reply]

Re: War crimes[edit]

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)[reply]

There is a corollary in the US military that when you screw up and you screw up badly, a promotion is not long in coming for you. The incompetent are kicked upstairs and the rank and file are left to clean up the mess. See the novel Catch-22 for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.5.159 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

crossrich (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) RESPONSE - It is clear that you and a number of other anonymous editors continue to want to impose their political opinion that the "Laconian Affair" was a US "war crime". Your above "opinion" that Capt Richardson screwed up and your recent article change that "Richardson's questionable judgment was a stain on his career" are unsupported by any primary or secondary sources (that are clearly laid out above). Capt Richardson WWII career clearly demonstrate your assertion is wrong. Shortly after the incident Capt Richardson was promoted to Major and his subsequent assignments to lead a flight of 50+ P-38 to Operation Torch, assignment to the USAAF Weapons Production Board, and follow-on assignment to TAC IX in the 1944-45 ETO, and finally to command of the 365th Fighter Group, "The Hell Hawks." These clearly do not reflect a flawed career. I should also point out that all the historians who have looked at the primary and secondary historical records (US, British, and German) do not support your "political" opinion. You are free to editorialize all you want in the "talk" section of this article but please show the readers the courtesy of signing your name to your statements.§crossrich (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External link to interview on nuclear policy?[edit]

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)[reply]

Added to Reference section - It clearly captures BGen Richardson outlining his logic behind Tactic Nuclear strategy and his memory the 1950's NATO nuclear strategy. It was shot in e his High Frontier Office in 1986 during the its height during the Reagan second Term. Thank you. crossrich (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_C._Richardson_III&oldid=1205062461"