Peter Granlund: A Profile in Courage and Fidelity to Law
By Dakota S. Rudesill
As social animals, we look to the examples of others. That is especially true in times that test our civic, professional, and moral values. This is how both cowardice and courage become contagious.
One profile in courage which has been on my mind is Peter Granlund, a great North Dakotan and my grand-uncle.
Eighty years ago this most recent fall and winter, in the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest, the Battle of the Bulge, and then into Germany, Peter, as an Army infantryman, saw some of the most intense combat of World War II. He was from Fort Ransom, North Dakota, high school class of 1943. Deployed in Europe, in 1944 his division fought Nazi SS panzers and the professional soldiers and conscripts of the Wehrmacht. As 1945 wore on and the end neared, they faced gaunt old men and the crazed child soldiers of the Hitler Youth.
Winter conditions and casualties in Peter’ s unit were horrific.
My law students learn about Sgt. Granlund’ s physical courage under fire, and about his ethical courage in the face of an illegal order.
Peter refused his lieutenant ' s order to kill a group of German soldiers who surrendered to him.
In January 1945, Peter was all of 19 years old and exhausted from months of combat. He and his unit were at the bloody front edge of the American advance into Germany. There were no Army lawyers around, but Peter had been trained in the rules of engagement( ROE) that reflect the Law of War and our civilization’ s moral commitment to sparing prisoners and other helpless noncombatants.
What is often called International Humanitarian Law has immense practical value. The promise of humane treatment encourages adversaries to surrender instead of carrying on the fight. The law also incentivizes reciprocal humane treatment for captured Americans. Named for the post-war tribunals at which Nazis were tried for monstrous atrocities, the Nuremberg Principle further restrains war’ s tendency toward uncontrolled butchery by stipulating that“ just following orders” is not an excuse when an order is clearly illegal.
Peter knew the rules. He knew he could not comply and knew he would not comply.
Sgt. Granlund’ s disregard for a superior’ s order in combat could have meant the worst of consequences for him, but the lieutenant evidently let the matter drop. As their platoon pressed the attack,
Peter sent the German prisoners marching toward a rear American line with arms held high in surrender. Any other soldiers within earshot of the lieutenant’ s shouted order to“ shoot them” plainly followed Peter’ s example, Sgt. Peter Granlund not the unlawful order. The teenage North Dakotan’ s ethical courage kept the law and morality on the battlefield that day and saved lives that the law protects.
The moment was not free of wartime tragedy. One of the German prisoners knew enough English to understand the execution order, but did not pause long enough to realize that Peter would not comply. The German grabbed Peter’ s rifle. As he recovered his weapon, Peter pulled the trigger killing the German soldier.
From his memoir, and conversations I recall vividly from my youth, it is clear to me Peter was haunted by a death that was, in his view, a tragic waste. Mere seconds earlier, that German’ s war appeared to be over. Whatever his future held, it was probably better than fighting for the Nazis in history’ s worst war.
Yet unlike the lieutenant’ s order, Peter’ s action was lawful. Confusion and misunderstanding are common in war. Unfortunately, the German impulsively responded by re-entering the fight. The German abandoned his prisoner status and therefore the law ' s protection from attack when he used force to seize a weapon. In fighting off an enemy’ s attempt to disarm him on the battlefield, Peter plainly acted in self-defense.
Similarly, Peter acted in self-defense in many other engagements. One, just days earlier and recounted in gripping detail in his memoir, involved a lethal contest of concealment, motionlessness, and precision aim with a Nazi sniper on a long, tense day in the snow-buried German countryside.
Ultimately, Peter could come home knowing, despite the horrors of war, he had refused to participate in illegality. Unlike his superior officer, Sgt. Granlund refused to lower his standards. Refused to participate in an atrocity.
The lessons for soldiers, for my law students, and for all of us are clear and transferrable to any setting. When you are not there and they have to quickly make decisions, others will rely on the laws you explain, the expectations you establish, and the rule-of-law values
10 THE GAVEL