Author Topic: Is This a War Crime? (Read 1208 times)

MRPLUTO · « **on:** October 20, 2003, 11:25:16 AM »

In World War 2 a pair of light bombers attack an enemy transport ship, causing heavy damage.

When the crew takes to life boats, the bombers strafe them.

Was it a war crime to strafe the crew in the life boats?

If so, what should be the punishment?

MRPLUTO

Sikboy · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:30:03 AM »

I can't decide. Was there a Bush involved somehow? That would help me make up my mind.

-Sik

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:30:17 AM »

Technically yes it would be. Unles the folsk in the rafts where firing apon the bombers.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:34:31 AM »

I don't know if that would be a war crime or not. you would think so. of course if anyone had fired at the planes from the lifeboats (even small arms fire) then they would no longer be non-combatants and become a valid target again.

Dago · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:38:15 AM »

What is the point of this question anyway? Lets rehash and armchair quarterback old history?

These kind of things went on constantly during the war, and were done by every country in the war.

You can look at it from differant viewpoints, you would need to know the mindset of the bomber crews to understand their thinking.

Maybe boats like the one they destroyed had a habit of shooting downed aircrews in their liferafts? (payback can be a *****)

Maybe they thought the boat crew would be able to be saved by another of their own boats, and since they were not being captured as POWS, they still considered them active combatents?

How about we don't rush to judge someone who's shoes we haven't had to walk in?

dago

Curval · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:45:46 AM »

When the Japanese were forced to halt their invasion plans of Port Morsby a number of their transports were sunk by US planes. The survivors were straffed unmercilessly.

Is this what you are talking about?

I am of a mixed opinion on this. The transports were full of combat troops. Killing as many as possible would have potentially saved American lives.

Toad · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:52:37 AM »

It was pretty much SOP in the 345th Air Apaches.

A 345th B-25 went down and the crew was seen to make it to shore by wingmen.

As the Allies advanced up the coast, a village was taken and the fresh graves of the beheaded enlisted men on the down B-25 were exhumed. Native villagers reported that the crew's officers had been taken on to prison camp but the enlisted crew had been publicly executed by the Japanese.

From that time forward it was "no quarter" between the Japanese forces and the 345th. It went pretty much both ways.

Maverick · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2003, 01:48:16 PM »

FWIW,

The Japanese initiated US POW executions starting with the Doolittle raid. Lets not forget Bataan, the "experimentation with Chinese POWs or other atrocities.

Now as to what the reason for this thread is, I have no clue. I doubt there was any positive reason for it IMO.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2003, 01:53:49 PM »

Quote

FWIW,

The Japanese initiated US POW executions starting with the Doolittle raid. Lets not forget Bataan, the "experimentation with Chinese POWs or other atrocities.

Now as to what the reason for this thread is, I have no clue. I doubt there was any positive reason for it IMO.

actually it started in the first few weeks of the war. when my father was taken prisoner on Wake they where given a paper handout listing the rules, each rules punishment was death. then to prove they where serious they pulled 3 men from formation (one was standing right next to my father) and decapitated them.

btw-even though they where told to destroy the paper after memorising it my father held onto it (not sure why. stubornness, a little act of defiance?), I still have it.

Maverick · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:00:15 PM »

Cpt.,

You're right. I forgot about that bit as the Doolittle raider treatment got more press.

fd ski · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:05:28 PM »

If you are trying to point out the fact that only those vanquished get slapped with "war crimes", then i'm sorry but it's obvious to everyone older then 5.

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:27:19 PM »

Both sides commited war crimes, and nothing is any different today. The most important point, I think, is that it's hard to judge ourselves the way we judge others. The above example could refer to any of thousands of attacks by all sides. Does it make a difference who is involved?

I read an AAR describing an attack like the one above. One of the pilots was George H.W. Bush. (sikboy-you heard of this before?) When asked about the report during the 1992 campaign, Bush refused to comment, and the "liberal" press ignored the issue. I read about it only in Harper's magazine.

The low-level of interest among most regarding John Kerry's ill-fated missions in Viet Nam, in which civilians were apparently targeted, is another example of people finding it hard to criticize their man.

*******

Curval's point is a good one: what's wrong with strafing troops whose transports you're trying to sink and who will invade you if given another chance. On the other hand, a transport is manned by civilians.

*******

How about some modern examples:

In Israel, a Palestinian suicide bomber blows himself up along with Israeli soldiers and civilians on a bus. Certainly the soldiers are legitimate targets; the bus and civilians on board are not.

In Gaza, an Israeli jet drops a 2,000 lb. bomb on an apartment building, killing about a dozen people. One of them is a terrorist leader, certainly a legitimate target. The others who died, mostly children, just happened to live in the same building. They were not legitimate targets.

I see no moral difference in these two incidents, both of which I would call war crimes.

*******

Another hard question: How do people feel about convicted mass-murderer Lt. William Calley (re: My Lai massacre) being pardoned by Nixon after serving only a short, rather comfortable, stay in prison?

*******

Or: Is it better for horrible dictators to be allowed to step down quickly and go into exile without being punished for their crimes in order to avoid bloodshed? (examples: Idi Amin of Uganda, Alberto Fujimori of Peru, Duvalier of Haiti)

*******

fd-ski,

No, my point is much more complex than that. Anyway, what you say isn't always true.

MRPLUTO

Sikboy · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:34:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
(sikboy-you heard of this before?)

No, your post just looked like a setup, and the Elder Bush was the only "light bomber" pilot I could imagine being the Target.

-Sik

Otto · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:37:25 PM »

If the troops in the water could have been rescued by their country and returned to the battlefield it was not a war crime to attack and kill them. In fact it was an unfortunate necessity.

Oh, I just read that Bush the elder was involved. Good for him.

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #14 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:39:03 PM »

Clever deduction, sikboy!

For the record:

I'm not trying to set anyone up. Just trying to point out how difficult it is to determine or assign guilt. I've tried to include diverse examples, rather than keep harping on any one.

MRPLUTO