War Crime or Operational Necessity?

[J0313]

My Granddad served aboard the USS Grenadier form the begining of the boats life till its end when they had to scuttle her form damage sustained in action in April of 1943. He told me a few very interesting things while I was growing up. Infact I heard all his stories so many times ( my Grand parents adopted me when I was 2 ) I could resite them like I had been there right along with them. He told me several times that US. fleet boats would shoot Jap survivors in the water. They did this for several reasons.

#1. Most survivors would'nt allow themselves to be rescued and thus captured. This represented a security risk for the boat becouse if the survivor and or survivors were later picked up by friendlies, they could give info that could lead to the boat being located.

#2. All nations tended to dehumanize thier enemies. This was nessasary in order to wage the kind of war that was being fought, TOTAL WAR. That means that no one is safe and everything is a legitimate target. Most American servicemen who fought in the Pacific theatre hated the Japanese at the time. This was understandable. The attack on Pearl Harbor cemented the unhuman quality of the Japanese in the minds of most Americans.

So as I stated before, history and who is a criminal and who is not is dictated by the winner. All though I know that our side was right and just in our cause to defeat the axis powers, no side came out perfectly clean in that war. So I can understand why the German Commander did what he did. He was just unlucky enough to be on the losing side of the war.

[J0313]

Originally Posted by jonmar

I remember seeing a documentary where they actually showed a Japanese survivor in the water pulling the pin off a grenade and blowing himself up. It was pretty rough to watch.

There was another documentary with footage of American soldiers approaching Japanese civilians and they showed a mother holding a baby jump off a cliff because of the horror stories they'd been told about the American troops by their propaganda.

Sorry for getting off topic. To reply to the OP yeah I definitely would say it was a war crime. GoldenRivet's analogy of shooting a man in a parachute was spot on.

Actually you are allowed by the laws of land warfare at the time to shoot paratroopers while in their chutes. You are not however, allowed to shoot aircrewman who are attempting to escape a downed aircraft in their chutes. The diffirence is one is a combatant while in his chute and the other isnt.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by HW3

My point was to say both sides committed war time atrocities, Germany's are just more well known due to Nuremberg.

On that we are completely agreed. Combat changes people, and you never know what you are capable of until it happens.

Originally Posted by J0313

Actually you are allowed by the laws of land warfare at the time to shoot paratroopers while in their chutes. You are not however, allowed to shoot aircrewman who are attempting to escape a downed aircraft in their chutes. The diffirence is one is a combatant while in his chute and the other isnt.

Can you show where these laws are written? I'd like to see them. I heard an American fighter pilot give a lecture once, and he was asked about Germans and Japanese shooting pilots in their 'chutes. He said the only story he could confirm of a pilot shooting another in his parachute was when he did it himself. He had barely survived the dogfight, and barely won it, and he said as the German pilot was climbing out of his cockpit all he could think of was that this guy might shoot down one or more of his buddies the next day, so he went ahead and killed him. He refused to comment on how he felt about it.

[J0313]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On that we are completely agreed. Combat changes people, and you never know what you are capable of until it happens.


Can you show where these laws are written? I'd like to see them. I heard an American fighter pilot give a lecture once, and he was asked about Germans and Japanese shooting pilots in their 'chutes. He said the only story he could confirm of a pilot shooting another in his parachute was when he did it himself. He had barely survived the dogfight, and barely won it, and he said as the German pilot was climbing out of his cockpit all he could think of was that this guy might shoot down one or more of his buddies the next day, so he went ahead and killed him. He refused to comment on how he felt about it.

Here is the link to the JAG copy of the laws in the Library of Congress.
It only has specific laws pertaining to Aircrewman. So that means that it was anything goes against Airborne forces.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...-warfare_7.pdf

[J0313]

Also check out this book: The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: It has paragraphs concerning the same. Basically Paratroopers are fair game no matter what.

[flag4]

...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.

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On that we are completely agreed. Combat changes people, and you never know what you are capable of until it happens.


Can you show where these laws are written?

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...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by J0313

Here is the link to the JAG copy of the laws in the Library of Congress.
It only has specific laws pertaining to Aircrewman. So that means that it was anything goes against Airborne forces.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...-warfare_7.pdf

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wreford-Brown

The Law of Armed Conflict:

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!

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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

[raymond6751]

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.

[Jimbuna]

I was expecting that.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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?