Moral objections on warfare.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Finally, I'd point out that the USAAF policy was not to shoot at chutes. But after seing the German's do so on numerous occasions against US pilots parachuting over German held land, US pilots ignored that rule and their superiors looked the other way.

This is not about what is policy and what is not. It is about what is honorable and what is the right thing to do. I believe that German pilots that did this shamed themselves, but I also believe that USAAF pilots who did the same were no better and shamed themselves likewise.

 

[Anonymous]

Finally, I'd point out that the USAAF policy was not to shoot at chutes. But after seing the German's do so on numerous occasions against US pilots parachuting over German held land, US pilots ignored that rule and their superiors looked the other way.

This is not about what is policy and what is not. It is about what is honorable and what is the right thing to do. I believe that German pilots that did this shamed themselves, but I also believe that USAAF pilots who did the same were no better and shamed themselves likewise.

Well, when you've had bomber crews in their chutes being straffed by fighters what would you expect? I suspect the Germans that did this got in the habit on the E. front. But the fact is in WWII all sides straffed the enemy when they were in the silk. That's just the way it was.

I do see a real problem with trying to associate the kind of "morality" that can be excercised in a conflict where your side totally dominates the enemy to one like WWII where things were much more even on the battle field. The fact is that in WWII there were many instances where you simply didn't take prisoners, that's the way it was. You could not afford too, if you did you could not complete your objective. If the enemy put out the white flag, you shot it. If he stepped out with his hands up, he got a bullet. It didn't become a war-crime until you accepted the enemy's surrender, and then shot them anyway.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, when you've had bomber crews in their chutes being straffed by fighters what would you expect? I suspect the Germans that did this got in the habit on the E. front. But the fact is in WWII all sides straffed the enemy when they were in the silk. That's just the way it was.

That is what I am trying to say is that it is wrong no matter who did it and it was done on all sides but that does not make it write and it can not be justified for any reason.

I do see a real problem with trying to associate the kind of "morality" that can be excercised in a conflict where your side totally dominates the enemy to one like WWII where things were much more even on the battle field. The fact is that in WWII there were many instances where you simply didn't take prisoners, that's the way it was. You could not afford too, if you did you could not complete your objective. If the enemy put out the white flag, you shot it. If he stepped out with his hands up, he got a bullet. It didn't become a war-crime until you accepted the enemy's surrender, and then shot them anyway.

Again I understand what you are saying but you can not justify it, especially when you have not been in a situation like that.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Captain Lunatic:

I had to leave to go to a party before I could finish my hypothetical and was unable to get to the rules of naval warfare which you have quite obviously siezed upon. Let's try again.


You are LG_Lunatic, the certifiably insane captain and commander of a British Destroyer. You engage a German Destroyer within 3 miles of German territory. Your hits disable the German ship and it begins to list badly as it takes on water. German sailors are jumping over board to escape the flame ridden and sinking ship. Dozens are in the water.

Your first officer requests permission to fire on the Germans, in the water, as they tread water and attempt to swim the 3 miles to shore.

As Captain Lunatic, you are certifiably insane yet respect the Geneva Convention. Your first officer, aware of your lunacy, reminds you that the Geneva Convention and all other "maritime rules of war" concerning conduct of naval warfare have been suspended for unknown reasons that are not relevant here. Thus, the rules of engagement and conduct in naval warfare are currently covered only by the existing general provisions of the Geneva Convention. (This makes the hypothetical an apples to apples situation since we are only dealing now with how the Geneva Convention would treat this matter.)

Your first officer has an itchy trigger finger and cogently argues that the floating and swimming Germans should be shot. He reasons by analogy that if English flyers were shot down and parachuted over their friendly territory, that they would be fair targets on their way down. He believes that the provision "... those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause ..." would not apply here for the exact same reasons argued by you on this thread.

There are no lifeboats here. The Germans are all either treading water or swimming towards land. Those who are treading water are being carried by the current towards land.

What are your orders Captian Lunatic? Is your first officer right? Should the floating/swimming Germans be shot?

 

[DAVIDICUS]

RG_Lunatic said:

I certainly see your point about the pilots in the chutes. But my point is that during WWII there were no "rules" concerning this, unlike maritime rules that did exist.

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923
ARTICLE XX
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, when you've had bomber crews in their chutes being straffed by fighters what would you expect? I suspect the Germans that did this got in the habit on the E. front. But the fact is in WWII all sides straffed the enemy when they were in the silk. That's just the way it was.

That is what I am trying to say is that it is wrong no matter who did it and it was done on all sides but that does not make it write and it can not be justified for any reason.

I do see a real problem with trying to associate the kind of "morality" that can be excercised in a conflict where your side totally dominates the enemy to one like WWII where things were much more even on the battle field. The fact is that in WWII there were many instances where you simply didn't take prisoners, that's the way it was. You could not afford too, if you did you could not complete your objective. If the enemy put out the white flag, you shot it. If he stepped out with his hands up, he got a bullet. It didn't become a war-crime until you accepted the enemy's surrender, and then shot them anyway.

Again I understand what you are saying but you can not justify it, especially when you have not been in a situation like that.

Sure we can. Society makes judgments about situations like this all the time.

Besides, I'm not really trying to "justify" it, I'm saying that it is what was done and that, in WWII at least, it was certainly legal within the existing rules of war - especially if the chute was over the enemies territory.

I had an Uncle who was a Marine in the pacific. At first, they tried to treat Japanese prisoners humanely. But, after repeatedly finding the corpses of American prisoners things changed. They typcially found the corpses either beheaded, tied to a tree and having been beaten to death or bayoneted in the guts, or burned (apparently alive). When they did find an American alive, he'd been beaten/stabbed/shot and left for dead, and often starved too. By Iwo Jima, they would burry the prisoners upside down in the sand and wager on which one would kick the longest. Certainly not right, but I can understand it.

Where I really draw the line is in what the Russian's did after Germany's surrender. I assume you're aware of the "three days"?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[trackend]

I think rules of war and honour in the context of WW2 are somewhat at odds with each other this was a war on a scale and unlike any before or since from calculated mass genocide that ran into millions of men women and children to emulsifing cities containing more non combatants than service personel. I can see RG what you are saying but do you think large numbers of these actions where done simply as revenge with 20 million soviets dead I am not suprised at the actions of the red army (this is not to say I condon it in any way). Having seen 30,000+ of your fellow flyers lost perhaps this may influence your moral jugment if in a simlar situation I'm just grateful it wasn't my call in that particular conflict as I cannot say what my reaction would have been but I suspect I would say bollocks to the bastards and pop a few out of revenge. I would imaging if any of us found ourselves with hundreds of thousands of our country men,woman children slaughtered perhaps out take on conventions would be different. Having said that I am not aware of anything carried out by the other allied forces on a scale as that done by the red army in Berlin ect.
Morally, yes I believe its wrong to kill non combatants , bailed aircrew, shipwrecked matlots or surrendered soldiers. but I can understand to a limited extent the actions that where carried out.

 

[hellmaker]

I don not agree... In a war everybody says that everybodyelse is guilty and responsable for the actions they are forced to take... Why is thet... Why doesn't anyone just say...STOP...let's turn our weapons only against the ones who turn theirs against us... why take inocent lifes...why kill prisoners of war...take them to a prison camp an keep them there until the end of the war...this too a means of reducing the enemy's numbers...isn't it???
I heard about a Natzi(they were from the SS if my memory serves) that killed with cold blood the people of one Polish village, children, women, elders... no one was left behind...and this was all done for fun...while being drunk... Do you mean to say that this was something justified... did they deserve to die????????

 

[trackend]

I assume that your comments Hellmaker are directed at me.
You are quite right the innocent do not deserve to die, but you also state why kill prisoners of war. So lets surmise that you, as a soldier capture some enemy troops in the polish village where this atrocity has taken place (you have relatives amongst the dead) they surrender to you and lay down their weapons are you going (as they are now prisoners of war) take them to a POW camp until the end of the war to reduce the enemy's numbers ? Id be very surprised if you could constrain yourself to that extent. This then makes you a killer of unarmed personel.
I basically was saying that people are people and there are times in the right situations where they perform very base acts.
I take it also from your view point then Hellmaker that you would have not dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan.
As I said Morally it is wrong to kill non combatants but I can understand the reasons in some cases.

 

[hellmaker]

Yes...I would take them as prisoners...and knowing what they have comitted I woud judge them as CRIMINALS OF WAR (COWS )... Why become yourself a criminal when you can punish the ones responsable... Why become a Vigilante??? Do you create your own justice??? Is it fair??? Do you expect that every soldier in an army is there because he wants this??? Would you be the first to enlist in the event that a dictator takes control of your country an declares war on which ever country he thinks is of simillar cultur, stating he want's to eliberate them...??? Would you??? I know I woldn't..and I am not affraid...If someone was to threaten my country with such an idiot ideal I would enlist... Why should you counquer a state???

 

[trackend]

hi Hellmaker
I feel that you are more Idealist than Realist.
I was only intimating (perhaps not as clearly as I should have) that in my opinion given the right situation it is possible for anyone including perhaps even yourself to loose restraint and act in a immorally correct and rational fashion. (obviously not in a premeditated manner)
As for your enlistment question, If I believed fervently that the dictator was the best thing sliced bread as did many hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens in pre war Germany did or I had been brought up as a youth in the belief that Adolf Hitler was next to god then yes I most likely would have enlisted even in the event of him declaring war an another state.
One final question Hellmaker would you have dropped the A bomb?
(one question mark is quite sufficient thank you)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sure we can. Society makes judgments about situations like this all the time.

Besides, I'm not really trying to "justify" it, I'm saying that it is what was done and that, in WWII at least, it was certainly legal within the existing rules of war - especially if the chute was over the enemies territory.

It was not legal in a moral way at all and the fact that is was done is a tragedy. It does not matter if the chute is over enemy territory or not. Here are the rules of air warfare:

The articals were never adopted

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

ARTICLE XX
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/hagair.html

I had an Uncle who was a Marine in the pacific. At first, they tried to treat Japanese prisoners humanely. But, after repeatedly finding the corpses of American prisoners things changed. They typcially found the corpses either beheaded, tied to a tree and having been beaten to death or bayoneted in the guts, or burned (apparently alive). When they did find an American alive, he'd been beaten/stabbed/shot and left for dead, and often starved too. By Iwo Jima, they would burry the prisoners upside down in the sand and wager on which one would kick the longest. Certainly not right, but I can understand it.

As I stated in an ealier post, I too can somewhat agree with it however I feel that it is wrong and it is morally wrong. Soldiers who commit these acts are no better then the people they are fighting against. As for the way Americans were found tortured and there heads cut off, that still happens today. Any American or as a matter of fact any Coalition soldier or civilian or really anybody that is captured in Iraq right now is tortured and has there head removed. Or they were dragged through the streets and burned alive. What I am getting at is how can you say that the way we are detaining prisoners in GITMO and the humiliation of a couple of Iraqis is a shame. Not that I am saying it is the right thing to do but it in no way compares to the what is being done to the soldiers. Lets see compare here: HUMILIATION OR DECAPITATION? HUMILITATION OR DECAPITATION? Which one do you think is worse and more wrong?

Where I really draw the line is in what the Russian's did after Germany's surrender. I assume you're aware of the "three days"?

I presume you are talking about the forced evacuations of German cities and towns in Eastern Europe and Germany, where mass executions and whole cities were killed and mass raping of women and girls was ordered by Russian Officers to be done? Yes I know of this, my wifes grandmother has told me several stories about it and how she lost the vast majority of her family and how she excaped being raped by Russian Soldier because an officer who had some compassion. She was 8 years old. As I stated in earlier posts I can understand a little while they did this after the German occupation of some parts of Russia, however actions like this are morally wrong no matter who they are done by. Also the fact that the war was over. It is kind of funny, after the war no one hears about the the attrocities committed by the Russians. I dont mean the ones committed just against German civilians but against all of Eastern Europe ie. Hungary, Poland, Romania etc. The Soviets committed a terrible holocaust of there own killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians throughout eastern Europe under Stalins iron rule. An estimated 2 million german civilians were executed by the Russians after the war had ended. I am not trying to take away from the Holocaust which is the most tragic attrocity ever commited in the history of the world but what I am trying to say is that it is wrong for anyone to do things like this even if you are the victor.

The real victims of the Reich in April 1945 were the German people and, especially, the women. Readers will need a strong stomach to deal with the litany of atrocities. The Red Army, crazy for revenge and drowning in alcohol, cut loose in an orgy of rape. The ravages of Atilla and the conquests of the Mongols cannot hold a candle to it. Beginning in East Prussia in January 1945, reaching a crescendo in the two-week battle for Berlin and continuing after the end of hostilities, rape ran at epidemic levels.

The Red Army's officers had neither the will nor inclination to stop it. During the battle, 130,000 women were raped, 10 per cent of whom committed suicide. In the 1945 campaign in Germany, Beevor establishes, with unimpeachable scholarship, that at least two million women were ravished, many in gang rapes. Soviet soldiers violated all in their path, not just young German girls but women in their 70s, and even Russian prisoners.
http://www.arlindo-correia.com/040702.html

Well anyway I am going stop now because it is wrong no matter who committs and it can not be justified in any way.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Obviously, if he has no problem with shooting downed flyers, parachuting to safety, he would have no problem shooting the floating Germans in my hypothetical.

Of course, We all know (Captain Lunatic too) that he wouldn't shoot the floating Germans for the same reasons argued by us for not shooting downed pilots.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think he would shoot them in there parachutes out of principle.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Basically, under the hypothetical, he can:

1) Order that the Germans be shot, thereby making an ass of himself.
2) Order that they not be shot, thereby admitting he is wrong.

Another option is for him to refuse to answer, for reasons that will be clear to us all. (He knows he is wrong)

Finally, he might order that they be saved (illustrating that my hypothetical is not an apples to apples comparison since no such option exists for a downed flyer). Of course, I will just retool my hypothetical to include that he can only remain on the scene of the sinking Destroyer for 10 minutes without endangering his crew since the Germans may now know of his position. Ten minutes would not affford enough time to rescue them but would provide ample time to kill them.


STAY TUNED!

 

[hellmaker]

NO Trackend... I would defenetly not have dropped it...
You are right though... Those thousands of germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

NO Trackend... I would defenetly not have dropped it...
You are right though... Those thousands of germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?

You have to understand that the German people are a prideful people and they lost everything in the Versaille Treaty. Also the depression did not help matters and the people were poor and shamed. Hitler basically came along and made them feel pride in being Germany again and gave them self worth. Before he showed his true face and the his idea of world domination he was even made a Time's Man of the Year for the things he did for the people. If you were in the peoples situation you probably would have followed him also.

 

[hellmaker]

I'm not blameing the germon people for anything... In those circumstances any other nation would have been confronted with the same problem... and every nation did have at one time such a leader that could turn people aginst one another(take Ceausescu). In such circumstances the promises of one man for a better and richer country would have been believed by anyone desperate enough...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They should not be but at the same time you have to question what they were thinking, once they truely found out what was going on. Why did they not revolt and try and overthrow the government. No matter how many SS and Gestapo and Polizei you have there are still more people who could fight to take down Hitler. It is just a thing to wonder. I was watching a Documentary on Vox (A German TV station) last night called Als Das Krieg nach Deutschland Kam. And I ask my wife how? I would have said no and rather die for such things.

 

[hellmaker]

I understand you completely... but take for example the time it took for the rebelion in the Eastern Block to take place... The comunists were at power for allmost half of century... why didn't anyone do anything in the meanwhile??? The answer might be because no one was confident enough in enyone... The SS had placed SPYES everywhere from the top of the Pyramid to the Bottom... It was very hard to plan something and get away with it... You could have lost everything including your own life and the lifes of you close ones without acheiving anything... This made you feel powerless... Even now there are being found dayly Files of Informers some of them which even their family didn't know about... So it makes your wonder... Who to trust??? Alone you couldn't stand a chance...