Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

Hey PAT303,

I would say that it is not any different, and that the deliberate targeting of civilians (regardless of whether by the Germans, US, UK, Russia, Japan, etc) is also poor form, and should be considered a war crime. It is considered a war crime today, regardless of whether you are a signatory to the Geneva Convention or not. But in WWII it was not illegal for a country to, say bomb civilians from 20-30,000 ft, if they had not signed the clauses in the Geneva Convention that prohibited such a thing. Mind you, Germany had (I think) signed those clauses.

Interestingly, the US and UK were (I think) the only 2 major WWII combatants that did not sign the post-WWI clause prohibiting bombing of cities(civilians) from the air (although in the late-1930s, Japan who had originally signed, unsigned some clauses concerning targeting civilians - this was also considered legal at the time). This was for the UK, I think, an aspect of a view toward the potential "Terror Bombing" campaign planned against Germany in event of war, from before the war started. Incidentally, the US was on board with bombing German and Japanese cities(civilians) before they entered the war. Fire bombing of Japanese cities had been a part of War Plan Orange since ~1933, and a part of the strategy against the Germans since the talks with the UK in 1940.

The US also did not sign the clause prohibiting unrestricted submarine warfare, hence the immediate order for said against the Japanese.

Hey Stona,

As I said above I agree that the RAF pilots should not have attacked the He 59 ASR aircraft, and I think that if I were in that position and was the same person I am now, I would not do so even if ordered. But I do not think we can say that the moral point is all that matters relative to our view of this.

The Hague and Geneva Conventions originated for the very reason that we are discussing in this post (apologies to pinehilljoe for the continued thread wander). The idea was to put forward rules that encouraged the combatants to treat the enemy prisoners and civilian bystanders of either country as you would want your own to be treated. In theory, if both sides had trusted each other not to abuse the privilege, the German ASR efforts would probably have been applauded by the UK - maybe there would even have been a competition between the 2 countries as to how many downed crews each side could rescue. But this would require both sides to restrain and their more vicious natures. It can be done, and has been done at times in the past. But I have to ask myself a question - would the RAF pilots have attacked the He 59s if there was a clause in the Geneva Convention covering ASR aircraft with proper markings going about their Convention defined job of rescuing downed air crews? Assuming the pilots were made aware of such, hopefully they would not attack. Laws do 2 things, one is to discourage you from doing something bad, the other is to give you permission to do something good - and not get in trouble for it. Sorry if I am getting preachy.

ThomasP said:

This was for the UK, I think, an aspect of a view toward the potential "Terror Bombing" campaign planned against Germany in event of war, from before the war started. .

Click to expand...

That is a huge over simplification. Morale bombing as it was called, was always a consideration in the Trenchardist bombing policies developed in the inter-war years, but there was always a tension between that and the plans actually developed for implementation on the outbreak of war.

None of the Western Air Plans included anything that could be interpreted as morale or terror bombing. When Bomber Command began to implement these plans, attacking German naval ports, aircraft were banned from bombing ships tied up at docksides in order to avoid possible casualties close to the docks.

Once again, it took some time for the gloves to come off and moral standards to slip. Bombs had fallen on Berlin, supposedly aimed at specific targets, but the first raid authorised with a city as a target was that on Mannheim on the night of 16/17 December 1940. This really was morale bombing, carried out in retaliation for the heavy bombing of Coventry and Southampton.

Until 9 September, after the Luftwaffe began the Blitz on London, Bomber Command pilots were under orders to bring their bombs back if they failed to identify their primary target.

Need to go to bed now (it is 0749 here) as I work second shift. TTYL

There is a reason why many medics and stretcher bearers of both sides in WWI took off their red cross markings. A patch of white with a red cross provided a good aiming point for a sniper.

fastmongrel said:

There is a reason why many medics and stretcher bearers of both sides in WWI took off their red cross markings. A patch of white with a red cross provided a good aiming point for a sniper.

Click to expand...

That has not changed. We had medivac birds come back full of holes despite clearly being marked with a red cross.

XBe02Drvr said:

Not contesting that point; it was the backbone of long distance transportation. It just didn't (and couldn't) reach into every small farming and light industry community, necessitating development and growth of a trucking industry. Ironically, this has in the long run led to the decline of railroads in the US.

Click to expand...

That, and the fact that railroads had to pay property taxes on their rights of way and for all the maintenance of the roads. The trucking industry didn't and still doesn't

stona said:

It is quite clear from the interrogation reports that the Seenotdienst expected that the British would respect these aircraft and not shoot them down. The first crews captured quite obviously believed that a terrible mistake had been made in their cases and that the British could not possibly have intended to shoot/force them down. The Germans considered them non-combatant, whatever the legal niceties of the laws of war.
Whether that was technically correct or not is not the point. It was a moral question, and it was one of the first instances from a British perspective when moral standards slipped. They had a long way to fall on all sides.

In 1940 I would have shot them down too, but today it looks like a poor decision.

Click to expand...

Hi

I do wonder why the Germans thought painting an aircraft white and putting a red cross on it protected the aircraft? It appears not to have protected hospital ships from the Luftwaffe before the BoB, for example HMNS Paris off Dunkirk on 2 June 1940, when Stukas (probably, from reports of the time) bombed and sunk it, or earlier on 21 May 1940 in Dieppe harbour when HMNS Maid of Kent was bombed and burnt out. In the latter case not only was the ship fully marked it had an additional awning over the deck with a big red cross, the dock area was also marked with a big red cross as it was where the hospital trains stopped to unload casualties. Indeed a photograph of the burnt out ship with a burnt out hospital train beside it was published at the time. Another hospital ship, the 'Brighton', was also hit but it was sunk a couple of days later by the Luftwaffe off Dieppe.

Did the Seenotdienst crews know the 'official' Luftwaffe policy on the protection of the red cross?

Mike

Duplicate

MikeMeech said:

Did the Seenotdienst crews know the 'official' Luftwaffe policy on the protection of the red cross?

Click to expand...

The Seenotdienst program was started in 1933, and was crewed with civilians and military from the start (and continued through 1945).
It was the world's first dedicated sea rescue program that included fast rescue boats as well as aircraft stocked with medical supplies, equipment to revive hypothermia victims and crew trained in medical aid.
Britain and the U.S. modeled their sea rescue programs after it, too.

ThomasP said:

In theory, if both sides had trusted each other not to abuse the privilege, the German ASR efforts would probably have been applauded by the UK

Click to expand...

There was, sadly, no chance of that. The Air Ministry made it clear in its justification for the attacks, and it did feel a need to justify them, whatever the niceties of law, that the aircraft were being attacked because they were acting as reconnaissance aircraft. This would deny them any form of protection under any circumstances and any interpretation of the rules of war.

MikeMeech said:

Hi

Did the Seenotdienst crews know the 'official' Luftwaffe policy on the protection of the red cross?

Mike

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter. That type of tit for tat reasoning always leads both sides rapidly down a moral slope, as was historically the case.

You can read my posts on the Anglo-American combined bombing offensive to see that I have always been a strong supporter of it and the reasons it was undertaken. However, I also acknowledge that it lost the Allies a moral high ground which they had previously occupied. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

swampyankee said:

That, and the fact that railroads had to pay property taxes on their rights of way and for all the maintenance of the roads. The trucking industry didn't and still doesn't

Click to expand...

In the early days, when railroads were growing, at what seemed to their eager would-be customers, a snail's pace, they were often granted large parcels of land out of which to fashion a right of way and adjoining lots which they could then sell to finance construction. This got them built more quickly, but then the "robber barons" came along and turned them into monstrous monopolies that needed reining in. At that point, their granted lands began to look to the common folk like ill gotten gains that should be benefitting the public treasury, and taxation was one lever of restraint on the robber barons that they didn't have the political clout to avoid.
Enter the petroleum industry. As the network of paved roads began to grow, they could see an expanding market at the expense of the then coal burning railroads, and heavily promoted "freedom of the open road", the auto and trucking industries, and the strategic importance of them. The infant trucking industry profited from "fostering" as the railroads had in their time, and were taxed on their equipment value, not their road usage, nor the RoW value of the roads they used.
My next door neighbor is a trucker, and he pays a hefty motor vehicle tax and registration in several states annually, and pro rata in other states he drives through, plus road tax in the states he's registered in. He does get a break, if you can call it that, in that the road taxes he and other truckers pay are less than the actual cost of repairs and maintenance that trucking inflicts on the roads. (Highway Council statistics)
Let's get back to Wildcats and BoB.

XBe02Drvr said:

In the early days, when railroads were growing, at what seemed to their eager would-be customers, a snail's pace, they were often granted large parcels of land out of which to fashion a right of way and adjoining lots which they could then sell to finance construction. This got them built more quickly, but then the "robber barons" came along and turned them into monstrous monopolies that needed reining in. At that point, their granted lands began to look to the common folk like ill gotten gains that should be benefitting the public treasury, and taxation was one lever of restraint on the robber barons that they didn't have the political clout to avoid.
Enter the petroleum industry. As the network of paved roads began to grow, they could see an expanding market at the expense of the then coal burning railroads, and heavily promoted "freedom of the open road", the auto and trucking industries, and the strategic importance of them. The infant trucking industry profited from "fostering" as the railroads had in their time, and were taxed on their equipment value, not their road usage, nor the RoW value of the roads they used.
My next door neighbor is a trucker, and he pays a hefty motor vehicle tax and registration in several states annually, and pro rata in other states he drives through, plus road tax in the states he's registered in. He does get a break, if you can call it that, in that the road taxes he and other truckers pay are less than the actual cost of repairs and maintenance that trucking inflicts on the roads. (Highway Council statistics)
Let's get back to Wildcats and BoB.

Click to expand...

RoW. Finally, an acronym I I know! G-D bless the Railroads.

MikeMeech said:

I do wonder why the Germans thought painting an aircraft white and putting a red cross on it protected the aircraft?

Click to expand...

A Japanese submarine sunk an Australian hospital ship that was not only painted white with red crosses but was continuously lit to identify it as such, https://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/centaur.htm the Japanese also had no problem murdering medical staff.
Sister Vivian Bullwinkel | The Australian War Memorial

ThomasP said:

Hey GrauGeist,

Unfortunately no.

re Air-Sea Rescue Aircraft and the Geneva Convention

from Geneva Convention 1929

Article 7
___The protection to which medical formations and establishments are entitled shall cease if they are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

Article 18
___Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.*
___They shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 38, together with their national colours, on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification that may be agreed upon between the belligerents upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.
___Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy-occupied territory are prohibited.
___Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.
___In the event of an involuntary landing in enemy or enemy-occupied territory, the wounded and sick, as well as the crew of the aircraft shall be prisoners of war. The medical personnel shall be treated according to Article 24 and the Articles following.

(My note: There was an attempt (before and during the 1929 Convention) to expand and provide more detailed protections for medical aircraft and aircraft searching for wounded or downed aircraft crew in need of rescue, but no significant changes were made. Although I am sure that the information is out there somewhere, I could not find a record of the suggested changes or discussions.)

from Geneva Convention 1949

[Excerpt from Article 36]

Paragraph 1 - Definition and Protection
___Medical aircraft have the same role under the 1949 Convention as in the past: flying alone or in convoys, they may be used both for the evacuation of the wounded and sick, and for transporting medical personnel and material. Like any other means of transport, they may be the property of the army, or of voluntary aid societies, or have been requisitioned.
___As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.*
___The nature of the protection accorded remains the same: the aircraft, like medical transport on land, are placed on the same footing as mobile medical units.

(My note: There is still no protection included in the Geneva Convention for the search and rescue aircraft, only for the personnel on board after it is shot down. The protections afforded the occupants are as for other military or civilian aircrew, medical personnel, wounded, etc.)
*My bold.

Click to expand...

I am curious, I have a reference in regard to this, that the 1929 Convention also stated "Aircraft used as a means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material. In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing and dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited."

That seems that ASR He 59's being identified as medical by their painting were thus were used in a prohibited way in the forward zones, and thus subject to loss of protection, allowing if not necessarily justifying their shootdown. That then comes from the finding of reconnaissance notes of convoy sightings in captured aircraft, which provided the justifications. However, that does not erase the moral dilemma of shooting down an aircraft that possibly has rescued one of your fellow pilots. The assumption that all Red Cross marked He 59's were nefarious was over broad. A more general prohibition of them from being in visual proximity of shipping would have been the more just policy to enforce by the RAF. But that might have been a problem with survival times in the Channel waters?

Hey RagTag,

re: "A more general prohibition of them from being in visual proximity of shipping would have been the more just policy to enforce by the RAF."

A good idea (seriously), but I can not think of any practical way that such a prohibition could be enforced. The aircrew they were rescuing in the period we are talking about (for the most part) were downed in the English Channel and North Sea adjacent to the Channel. RN ships and boats (I am not sure how much merchant shipping) routinely operated in those waters.

Hey PAT303,

The following in no way justifies the Japanese attack on AHS Centaur, but it should be kept in mind.

At the start of the war the Japanese behaved very much in line with the Geneva Convention, particularly relative to the sick and wounded. They marked their hospital ships to the standards of the Geneva Convention, and used them only for medical purposes (in the same way as the Allies) and sometimes transport of evacuated civilians (in the same way as the allies). The US submarines and air forces routinely attacked them anyway, from the start of the war, with the only reason for no Japanese hospital ships being sunk during 1942 being that the US submarine torpedoes performed badly.

One such attack occurred on 25 April 1943, when the USS Runner fired 6 torpedoes from about 700 yds, at the HS Buenos Aries Maru during broad daylight. The HS Buenos Aries Maru was a Japanese hospital ship, registered and marked properly (there are official records of the registration in October 1942 and photos of the ship in the harbour a few days prior to the attack) and carrying only medical personnel, sick and wounded. At least one torpedo hit the ship but fortunately only partially exploded, causing minor hull damage and wounding a few crew.

HS Buenos Aries Maru was again attacked on 17 August 1943 during broad daylight, this time by an unidentified type of aircraft carrying US markings, while en-route to Rabaul carrying medical supplies and medical personnel. Fortunately the aircraft missed the ship.

HS Buenos Aries Maru was again attacked on 22 November 1943, again in broad daylight, again properly marked (again there is a pictures of the ship shortly before leaving the harbour at Rabaul) but by a patrolling Liberator this time. This time the ship was not so lucky, being hit by a bomb which opened the hull to the sea. The ship sank in about 50 minutes. The personnel on board were 1129 wounded and sick, 63 medical staff, 72 ships crew, and a small number of unarmed troops (~16) being sent home. The Liberator hung around for a while and made a couple of passes while machine gunning the survivors in the water, fortunately with little or no effect. Most of the ~1280 personnel aboard were rescued, with only 158 listed as dead or missing.

The US official investigation summary statement said that "at the time of the bombing the identity of the hospital ship was not evident until after the attack was made". As to the machine gunning of the survivors in the water and life boats, the official statement was that "at the time their identity was unknown". (I assume that this means the Liberator did not take the time to identify the ship properly before attacking.)

In all, there were at least 23 attacks by the US forces on Japanese Hospital Ships between 7 December 1941 and the end of the war in the Pacific, with at least 7 by submarines and the rest by aircraft. 5 Japanese Hospital Ships were sunk. This maybe is not as horrific as it may sound, as the US attacked pretty much anything that they thought was Japanese and operated on or under the water.

Folks - good information here but please avoid politics.

FLYBOYJ said:

Folks - good information here but please avoid politics.

Click to expand...

Hey Joe, would it be possible to get the Seenotdienst comments moved to it's own thread?
This is one of thise cases where a good thread got hijacked by an equally good side discussion.