Slightly Off Topic - Underage USAAF Crew

[Dan Jones]

Slightly off topic, but I was just reading about Clifford Roy Wherley who passed in 2013. He was a B-26 mid-upper gunner who enlisted in the AAF when he was 14. I was just wondering what the Luftwaffe would have done with him if he’d have been shot down and captured and they discovered they had a fifteen-year-old kid on their hands?

[junkman9096]

I "gar-on-tee" you he would have been exploited for propaganda purposes. "Just look at this CHILD! Exploited and forced into the US Army. He should be home, in school. Instead, he was set against the Fatherland. These are the Untermensch being set against us." Or some such, imitating Nazi propaganda tropes is beyond my experience and skills. I recall the old "12 O'Clock High" TV show had a episode with an underage airman as the subject.

[JohnB]

Propaganda value notwithstanding, I'm sure other combatants had underage soldiers and sailors.
I'm sure the Royal Navy had sailors that young (based on their history) and both Germany and Russia had underage members out of necessity.

I'm a bit more surprised about the USAAF having an underage aircrew. I would have thought given their rank/NCO status, there was less a chance of it happening.

[junkman9096]

To pile on my previous post: recall the "sturm und drang" from the Nazi propaganda machine when aircrews were captured wearing provocative aircraft names on their uniform jackets. In particular early in the campaign a crew from a B-17 named "Murder Inc" was shot down and the photos of said jackets were widely utilized for their propaganda purposes.

[JohnB]

To pile on my previous post: recall the "sturm und drang" from the Nazi propaganda machine when aircrews were captured wearing provocative aircraft names on their uniform jackets. In particular early in the campaign a crew from a B-17 named "Murder Inc" was shot down and the photos of said jackets were widely utilized for their propaganda purposes.

I have read that the "Murder, Inc" (a media nickname for a gangster group) incident led to "the powers that be" requiring aircraft names to be approved, by whom and what level (at the squadron, group, wing or NAF), I don't know.
If any original documents survive, that would be interesting research.

Another propaganda - related name issue. We have all seen the photos of (then) Princess Elizabeth with a B-17. Originally they were going to name the aircraft after her. But someone (probably the Royal staff) objected because it would look bad if the aircraft was lost in combat. So it was named "The Rose of York" after her instead. IIRC, the aircraft was indeed lost.

[junkman9096]

Another propaganda - related name issue. We have all seen the photos of (then) Princess Elizabeth with a B-17. Originally they were going to name the aircraft after her. But someone (probably the Royal staff) objected because it would look bad if the aircraft was lost in combat. So it was named "The Rose of York" after her instead. IIRC, the aircraft was indeed lost.

Somebody didn't get that memo in the 352nd FG. P-51B 42-106449 HO-W William Whisner pilot

[JohnB]

Yes, I've always wondered about that.
Probably a case of "what they don't know won't hurt them".
The royal staff were involved because of her visit to the base and probably thought of it as royal sponsorship or something.

Or perhaps Whisner's wife or daughter was named Elizabeth.

[junkman9096]

Yes, I've always wondered about that.
Probably a case of "what they don't know won't hurt them".
The royal staff were involved because of her visit to the base and probably thought of it as royal sponsorship or something.

Or perhaps Whisner's wife or daughter was named Elizabeth.

I've read a narrative (maybe from "Fighter Group" by Jay A Stout) that Whisner was off base when the paint up was done and he was none-to-happy when he saw it. I think it stayed on until shorty after the Royal visit.

On a related aspect I found this story in "Bluenoser Tales". Tried to scan it but of course the part of the page I wanted to scan was hard up against the binding.

Since I have decals for both planes mentioned it might make for an interesting diorama in 1/48th scale.

[Mark Allen M]

I know of a few documented cases of American servicemen during WWII who embellished their ages to meet the minimum age requirements, but never have I heard of one being as young as 14. Allied and Axis servicemen I’m sure this could have happened (especially the Axis side) but never an American. Even if this veteran looked much older than 14, that’s still incredibly young to get by the authorities granting approval to serve. But anything was possible in those days so could very well be a fact in this case. Glad he survived to live a full life.

As for being captured at that young an age, I would assume this serviceman would have kept his age at what he embellished it to be.

[Clifford Bossie]

Not aircrew, but: One of our volunteers at War Eagles Air Museum had been an apprentice mechanic at Biggs AAF when he was 13. He lied about his age and went in the Navy at 15 and served aboard a mine sweeper. His ship was one of the first (if not the first) to enter the waters at Hiroshima after the bombing. Carl then came home and worked as a mechanic for my grandfather. He was a wonderful person to work with and was somewhat of a mentor to me, but sadly passed away in 2014.

[Noha307]

Not USAAF, but the youngest American service"man" in World War II was Calvin Graham, a gunner onboard the USS South Dakota, who enlisted at age 12. However, if you're looking for USAAF examples, there's apparently an organization for them:

It wasn’t uncommon for boys to lie about their age in order to serve. Ray Jackson, who joined the Marines at 16 during World War II, founded the group Veterans of Underage Military Service in 1991, and it listed more than 1,200 active members, including 26 women.

(Source: Smithsonian Magazine)

I was just wondering what the Luftwaffe would have done with him if he’d have been shot down and captured and they discovered they had a fifteen-year-old kid on their hands?

So, if you want a strict "what is legally required" answer that is tricky as I doubt there were any formal treaties regarding child soldiers at the time. Article 77 of the Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that:

3. If, in exceptional cases, despite the provisions of paragraph 2, children who have not attained the age of fifteen years take a direct part in hostilities and fall into the power of an adverse Party, they shall continue to benefit from the special protection accorded by this Article, whether or not they are prisoners of war.
4. If arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict, children shall be held in quarters separate from the quarters of adults, except where families are accommodated as family units as provided in Article 75, paragraph 5.
5. The death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict shall not be executed on persons who had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time the offence was committed.

(Source: International Committee of the Red Cross)

You could argue that it was just codifying what was an unwritten international norm at the time of World War II. (Keep in mind, this is what was done at Nuremburg. Many of the charges against the defendants were not technically crimes, as they were not specifically codified at the time.) However, given that they were adopted in 1977, it might be difficult given the amount of time that had passed in between.

Of course, the Germans willingly broke other aspects of written international law, so they could have been equally cavalier about underage servicemen. However, I think exploiting them for propaganda value - showing the "evils" of the Allies - would is a pretty good guess as to what would have happened. Beyond that, I think it would have depended upon whether they were from the Western Allies or the Soviet Union. Jewish POWs are a good analogy. Despite all of the fears, you were actually fairly safe as an American, British or French Jewish prisoner of war. (For those interested in the why, there's actually an excellent paper on the subject.) Given that the Germans didn't end up killing the soldiers they had in captivity who they saw as untermenschen, I doubt they would have executed anyone they had lesser antagonisms against. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if the Germans ended up exchanging or repatriating them. 35,000 soldiers were exchanged during World War II including, crucially for this argument, some with "protected status".[1] Returning "kids" back to their families could be portrayed as showing the "beneficence" of Germany and building on a contrast with the Allies. (For those who doubt that Germany cared this much about the way that the world thought they were caring for their prisoners, recall that they went so far as to set up a Potemkin village at Theresienstadt just to show the Red Cross how "well" they were being treated.[2])

Underage Soviet POWs though? They would probably been worked to death just like any of the adults.