Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
-
I can't decide. Was there a Bush involved somehow? That would help me make up my mind.
-Sik
-
Technically yes it would be. Unles the folsk in the rafts where firing apon the bombers.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Cpt.,
You're right. I forgot about that bit as the Doolittle raider treatment got more press.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
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.
It seems you should sue your parents for failing to give you a proper upbringing.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
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?
MRPLUTO
Doesn't sound like a war crime to me... they are after all, combatants, regardless of the current situation.
This is a war crime. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50263-2003Oct19?language=printer)
-
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.
in the cases you mention and call war-crimes I'd call colateral damage.
if a target chooses to seround themselves with civilians the blame is theirs.
if I went into battle carying a child with me as a shield, who would be the criminal, me or the man who shot at me and killed the child?
war is a messy business, and isolating your damage is rarely possable. those in combat face many hard choices all day every day, and they don't have the luxery of only doing things they are comfortable with or that make them feel good. I know I don't feel real comfortable sitting safely at home second guessing their actions.
my general rule of thumb on deciding if an act is a war-crime is this- if you have any doubt that it was a crime it probably wasn't.
-
Cpt Apathy let represent this another way :
A terrorist blow in a bus killing your childrens.
=> not good
A pilot drop a 2000lbs bomb killing your childrens.
=> good Afterall it's only a collateral domage...
Do you see my point ?
-
a soldier kills my son in combat.
I'm still pissed.
whats your point? that it's bad when people die? I think we all get that. or is it that people die in war? I think we understand that too.
I would say that intentionally targeting civilians, with no strategic advantage (are they scientists developing weapons, or if they are manufacturing weapons) other than to terrorise the enemy is a war-crime. killing pow's is a war-crime.
inocents being killed in war is a terrible thing but it doesn't make the soldier a criminal. many soldiers are drafted and do not engage in war by choice. since they are therefore 'inocent' does that make it a crime to aim for those soldiers? how do you seperate them from the rest (do interviews before battle? :rolleyes: ).
it's all very complicated, a lot of grey areas. it's war, the confusion and horror are the nature of the beast.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It seems you should sue your parents for failing to give you a proper upbringing.
Wow, great rebuttal!
You sure showed him that he is wrong, and you convinced us all of your excellent point.
AD HOM
-
"Collateral" is defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) as: secondary or indirect
In the two examples above, the civilian casualties were part of the target; the planners knew the civilians on the bus or in the apartment building would be killed if the attack went as planned.
So what is collateral damage?
When RAF Mossies made a low-level attack on a Gestapo HQ and prison in Holland the plan was to destroy the prison's walls and HQ building. Some bombs unfortunately hit the prison and killed prisoners. Many more, however, escaped certain death at the hands of the Gestapo. More tragically, other bombs hit a school and hospital, causing civilian casualties. It wasn't a given that this would happen, but as you say: war is messy.
But do we want to say it's okay to target civilians along with legitimate targets? I mean, wasn't there an office of the CIA and/or FBI in the World Trade Center? Even if there was, it would never justify destroying the WTC with civilian airliners, by just calling those deaths "collateral damage".
*******
And, if these questions aren't difficult enough, then there's the case of the Flying Tigers' attack on the Japanese at the Salween Gorge, which resulted in large civilian casualties along with a decisive Japanese defeat. Chennault got Chiang Kai-shek's permission to make the attack on the Japanese column, which was intermingled with fleeing civilians on a narrow mountain road and bridge.
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
it's all very complicated, a lot of grey areas. it's war, the confusion and horror are the nature of the beast.
I do agree.
It's late for me (about 12 Pm) I'll contribute perhaps more tomorow.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
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
It isn't a war crime. What made you think it could have been? I think too many people are too quick to equate 'war crime' with 'things they don't think are nice'. Welcome to warfare.
Mike/wulfie
-
It's not a war crime if your side wins the war.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Cpt Apathy let represent this another way :
A terrorist blow in a bus killing your childrens.
=> not good
A pilot drop a 2000lbs bomb killing your childrens.
=> good Afterall it's only a collateral domage...
Do you see my point ?
Intent matters. It doesn't make civilians getting killed when a military target is hit 'okay' or something to be 'taken lightly' but you cannot assign moral equivalency in these cases.
German women and children being killed by 'strategic bombing' was a horrific thing especially due to the fact that the theories behind the strategic bombing campaign (i.e. the civilian populace of Germany would become dispirited and this would destabilize the Nazi regime, affect civilian industrial support of the German war machine, etc.) were for the most part severely flawed. But following the line of reasoning you just used, there's no real difference between a concentration camp guard who herds women to an execution area and a U.S.A.A.F. bomber crewman involved with the daylight bombing campaign over Germany.
There's a huge difference between commiting actions that could result in innocents being killed and commiting actions with the sole purpose of causing innocents to be killed.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
It's not a war crime if your side wins the war.
What he (MRPLUTO) described isn't a war crime no matter which side wins the war. If you're a sailor on a merchant vessel supporting the war effort during a time of open warfare you are fair game. If a destroyer had caught the same merchant ships all alone, and the ships had 'surrendered', and the destroyer had the ability to accept the surrender at no risk to itself or its assigned mission - then you'd be getting into 'war crime' territory.
There were certainly combatants involved in every theater and on every side that displayed 'chivalry' that was 'above and beyond' what was required to avoid 'commiting war crimes'. A lack of chivalry is not the same as being a war criminal.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Technically yes it would be. Unles the folsk in the rafts where firing apon the bombers.
It's an enemy transport ship. The guys in the boat are members of the ships crew of an enemy in time of war. They were/are fair game.
Also, this example is small potatoes. It's like asking about the morality of the hand job scene at the beginning of a Ron Jeremy triple feature. Read up on the Battle of the Bismark Sea if you want to read about guys getting strafed in the water. Conservative estimates put the Japanese loss of life at 5,000+ - all guys who began the day riding on or crewing transports, warships, etc.
Mike/wulfie
-
What I meant is that if you are not on the winning side, anything can be a war crime.
The Japanese would have executed any Amercian captured after this. It's all relative.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
It's an enemy transport ship. The guys in the boat are members of the ships crew of an enemy in time of war. They were/are fair game.
Also, this example is small potatoes. It's like asking about the morality of the hand job scene at the beginning of a Ron Jeremy triple feature. Read up on the Battle of the Bismark Sea if you want to read about guys getting strafed in the water. Conservative estimates put the Japanese loss of life at 5,000+ - all guys who began the day riding on or crewing transports, warships, etc.
Mike/wulfie
It's a grey area, Technically, if your opponent is not longer a combatant then you don't have the right to attack them. If you have compelling reason to believe they are still combatants then it's a creditable decision. Whether you kill one person or 1000 the rules of combat still apply.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
It's a grey area, Technically, if your opponent is not longer a combatant then you don't have the right to attack them. If you have compelling reason to believe they are still combatants then it's a creditable decision. Whether you kill one person or 1000 the rules of combat still apply.
So what if they have the potential to be a future combatant? If those soldiers get pulled out of the water by their navy and sent back onto a battlefield, your chivalry just got a bunch of your countrymen killed.
-
Since when has war been fought while submitting to "rules"
War is War, a crime in itself.
-
Theres rules to war?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Whether you kill one person or 1000 the rules of combat still apply.
All that stuff went right out the window in the Pacific theater.
-
What I'm saying is what the rules of war are as defined mostly by the Geneva convention. Clearly, there is room for interpetation under certain conditions and there are those who care not for rules. The question was is this a war crime, the answer is there is probable cause to believe it might be.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Intent matters. It doesn't make civilians getting killed when a military target is hit 'okay' or something to be 'taken lightly' but you cannot assign moral equivalency in these cases.
German women and children being killed by 'strategic bombing' was a horrific thing especially due to the fact that the theories behind the strategic bombing campaign (i.e. the civilian populace of Germany would become dispirited and this would destabilize the Nazi regime, affect civilian industrial support of the German war machine, etc.) were for the most part severely flawed. But following the line of reasoning you just used, there's no real difference between a concentration camp guard who herds women to an execution area and a U.S.A.A.F. bomber crewman involved with the daylight bombing campaign over Germany.
There's a huge difference between commiting actions that could result in innocents being killed and commiting actions with the sole purpose of causing innocents to be killed.
Mike/wulfie
I don' t see any difference ,perhaps because I'm not involved in this exemple being neither Israely not Palestinian.
Executing an order is in no way a excuse.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Interesting. Wulfie, does that mean that it wouldn't be a crime if German u-boats machinegunned survivors in the water? Survivors of merchantmen crews? I belive that happened at least once. So did US submarines at least once.
I don't think it would be a war crime. I think a precedent was set when, initially, German U-Boats would actually surface and attempt to render some aid to survivors they were attacked on a few occasions by other nearby ASW-capable units.
I see the attempts to render aid as chivalry - it is admirable but the relevant commanders did the correct thing in my opinion once the safety of their crews and commands were in jeapordy - they either rendered no aid or attacked the relevant enemy personnel to the fullest of their ability.
I see war crimes as being actual war crimes - in this case killing or mistreating enemy prisoners whose surrender has been accepted. I am certain that numerous times in the history of warfare combatants have tried to surrender and have been killed - often because the enemy they were trying to surrender to had no way to safely or efficiently accept surrender. If you are storming trenchline #1 of 42, and the few survivors of that trenchline throw their hands up as you come over the crest of the trench - do you stop your assault? Do you leave them behind you risking the lives of your command?
If you are a sub commander and you torpedo a transport that spills 1000 soldiers into the water who enter lifeboats - those are still soldiers. If you let the crew embark in lifeboats you are being nice. Maybe at the expense of your crew - as soon as they are picked up they are going to relay your last known position, etc.
It isn't nice. It's not a 'perfect' answer. But it's not killing people whose surrender you have accepted either - not even close.
If I recall correctly - those German U-Boat commanders were not convicted (or even really charged) with commiting war crimes.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don' t see any difference ,perhaps because I'm not involved in this exemple being neither Israely not Palestinian.
Executing an order is in no way a excuse.
Executing an *unlawful* order is in no way an excuse - at least in the U.S. military it isn't.
If I am a pilot ordered to bomb a C4I node located in a major city - that is not an unlawful order.
If I am a soldier ordered to kill the civilian inhabitants of a town that I am passing thru - that is an unlawful order - and I would be expected to not follow it.
B-17s were targeting industrial areas. I don't agree with this practice - largely due to 50+ years of '20/20 hindsight' - so in no way would I consider the crews of those B-17s to be 'war criminals'.
I'll say it again - intent matters. If it didn't, and if certain Nations were really as 'evil' as some would imply - then there would be *no one* left to complain.
Mike/wulfie
-
War Crimes?
In a war theres always a winning side and this side decides what is and what is not a war crime. Who´s gonna bring the winning side to Justice?
-
Hortlund was brought up with pro-semitistic lenses..
Newsflash: Warcrimes are warcrimes regardless of who do them. Or maybe Hortlund thinks the children were 'a palestinian terrorist bunch of scum' and had it coming. More accurate?
Gscholz: Right on spot.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
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
To kill helpless people is always a crime regardless if there's a war or not.
Punishmen? I hope that the strafers saw the faces of their victims dying. That should be enough punishment for their lives.