...I realise fully how contentious this topic is. both sides are guilty of war crimes.

this passage is from Silent Hunters: edited by Theodore P. Savas.

by Dwight R Messimer: Heinz-Wilhelm Eck. Siegerjustiz and the Peleus Affair.

p.157
' The case of the German Destroyer Erich Giese, sunk near Narvik on April 13 1940, is but one well-documented example. After the Erich Giese had been sunk, the British destroyers fired on the 200 German survivors who were flailing about in the water and clinging to life rafts. The British had claimed the killing was an "operational necessity" to prevent the German sailors from reaching shore and joining the German troops in Narvik.'

the essay is well worth reading because it is not an open and shut case.
the cries for execution are heart breaking considering what these men went through - how blinded they may have been by National Socialism - following orders and the simple will to survive.
Eck was 29 when he was executed. I don't condone what he and others did but this was harsh justice in light of what else went on.

The Law of Armed Conflict:

Self-Defence:

Everyone has an inherant right to self-defence. Under self-defence rules then I may not shoot first but if the enemy shoots at me then I can respond with any weapon system in my inventory (including air/aviation) as long as I remain within the rules for collateral damage.

Deliberate Operations:

If I am conducting deliberate operations then I may apply for other Rules of Engagement (ROE) which gives a sliding scale from Hostile Act (the enemy is 'doing' something) through Hostile Intent (the enemy is 'about' to do something) to carte blanche targeting against a particular target (the enemy has done something in the past and I will use deadly force to prevent him doing it again). These ROE are requested before an operation and are usually time and location specific (e.g I can have Hostile Intent for 24 hours in a 10km by 10km box).

If tried, all of these have to be justifyable in a court of law - the crux of the argument is whose court of law (usually the victor!). In your paratrooper scenario I have a number of options:

1. I firmly believe but can't prove that he was shooting at me from his parachute (Self-defence).
2. I saw him shooting at me (Hostile Act).
3. He was probably going to shoot at me because he was armed and an enemy (Hostile Intent).
4. My higher command told me that I could shoot any enemy soldiers in my area of operations (carte blanche).

If tried by a friendly court then I'm likely to be acquitted on all four options. If an enemy court then I will probably get away with carte blanche as long as these ROE are documented (which nowadays they always are). The other 3 scenarios will depend on the court.

In my opinion Eck committed a war crime and he lost his life because he was on the losing side. To the victor the spoils...

Thank you. That's the sort of thing I was looking for. Also a good document to have, and now I do! Thanks again.

Laws concerning airborne forces would seem to be no different than sinking an enemy ship. That a cruiser or battleship is incapable of attacking a submerged submarine is irrelevant. If the submarine were to surface the ship would certainly attack it, so the fact that it cannot do so at the moment doesn't save its crew from being enemy combatants. After the ship is sunk they are to be treated as prisoners of war. Your argument for the shooting of paratroopers still in their parachutes certainly seems to fall under the same conditions.

You speak of laws and rules in this post, but unless you can show the actual laws as written this is all speculation on your part. Even if you are correct, until you show an actual law it still has to be taken as only your opinion.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...kbook-2012.pdf

Just search it for Paratroop

　
"Parachutists. (FM 27-10, para. 30). Paratroopers are presumed to be on a military mission and therefore may be targeted."


All us 'Nut Jobs' know that one!

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...kbook-2012.pdf

Please remember what I do for a living - this is my bread and butter!

http://www.matrixgaming.ca/wp-conten.../cat_gamer.jpg

:haha:

Both sides
 

Just finished reading a book about US subs by Ed Beach. In it he told of his captain, Lt Cmdr Momsun, ordering Japs in the water to be machinegunned, and they were. His reasoning was that it was no different than an aircraft bombing and strafing a troop train.

The winners make the rules. If Germany had won several Allied hangings would have taken place. War is all about death.

I was expecting that.

What?
The last post or the one where a real ParaTrooper can tell you that as a ParaTrooper your just as good a target as any on the ground?
:hmmm:

Neither, the post made by a certain officer currently serving in a certain countries armed forces.

Thank you. I did not know that, and I never take anyone's word for anything. The book, however, makes it fact, and I appreciate it.

And thanks Jeff for posting it as well.

WB
 

Which branch are you in?

Probably the most endearing thing I recall you telling me in Texas.
:hmmm:


Just before We said We'd be there to clean up the USS Cavella site next morning?
:oops:

(I'm kidding Mate! You told me that the next day!)
:03:

Privateer.
 

So you visited Seawolf park eh? My Grandfather was one of a handful of Subvets who started that park.

I'd love to share the details of a very recent PM (an hour or so old) but obviously can't.

~SALUTE~ to you both :salute:

I was there about a year ago come Easter.
:yep:

Even tried to hook up with Neal and others while down that way.
Being Easter weekend they all used that as an excuse to totally ignore me!
:o

So We visted the Texas.
You saw what happened to that didn't you?
:haha:

LOL....ya daft bugga :)

Better chance The Grey Wolves get blamed for global warming :)

The Texas had quite a list developing from what I understand. Something like between 5 and 7 deg.

Roger that Steve, and verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're printed on! :up: