Legitmate Act of War or Warcrime? You decide. - Page 2




 
--
 
October 20th, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
On the 17th June 1940 the German bombers sunk the the SS Lancaster carrying 8.000 troops from France back to Britain. The Germans did not give thought to the troops in the water as they machined gunned them. At least 5.000 men died that day. So why all the fuss when it is done to the Germans, lets face it they started it all in first place.
October 20th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
On the 17th June 1940 the German bombers sunk the the SS Lancaster carrying 8.000 troops from France back to Britain. The Germans did not give thought to the troops in the water as they machined gunned them. At least 5.000 men died that day. So why all the fuss when it is done to the Germans, lets face it they started it all in first place.
I don't think it has anything to do with who committed the crime, I think what people are realising is that both sides committed these acts yet only one side was punished for it.

I think people are interested in why it was an executable war crime for a German captain to shoot a sailor in the water and "an unfortunate reality of war" for an Allied captain to do the same.
October 21st, 2008  
perseus
 
 
There is a difference in this case though. In one situation leaving the location because of a genuine concern about enemy activity and thereby risking ones own ships and crew, and the other deliberately killing people in the water without any risk to themselves (if that is what happened in the Lancastria situation).
--
October 21st, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
There is a difference in this case though. In one situation leaving the location because of a genuine concern about enemy activity and thereby risking ones own ships and crew, and the other deliberately killing people in the water without any risk to themselves (if that is what happened in the Lancastria situation).
In terms of the Bismarck survivors they had a reason to move on and I don't have an issue with that (unless the submarine sighting was fraudulent as has been mentioned in the past) I am referring more to the scenarios posed by Mmarsh.
October 21st, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
Now would have a German U Boat Captain taken the opportunity of sinking a major Royal Navy ship even if it was rescuing some of its fellow country men. Personally I think that there were more than a few out at the time that would have taken the shot.
MontyB. The side gets punished is the side that loses, and there were a huge number of Germans who should have been punished for war crimes that wasn't. Every thing at the time was matter fate, they could either be unlucky and picked out for punishment or they could be at the stage when the Allied Powers felt they had made enough examples of the war crimes and stepped back and let things settled down as they had made their point.
October 21st, 2008  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
MontyB. The side gets punished is the side that loses, and there were a huge number of Germans who should have been punished for war crimes that wasn't.
Too many Japanese got away with insidious war crimes, I am still of the opinion (though many wouldn't agree) that the Japanese emperor should have hanged along side Tojo and his cronies.
October 21st, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
Well chum I agree whole heartily about your comments on the Japanese, my old Regiment was out there and when they came across a Japanese POW camp holding Allied POW they were so appalled that they hung all the Japanese guards and prisoners along the roads that they passed along. A Colonel on one of the Guards Regiments tried to intervene but some one stuck a Sten gun barrel up his nose and told him to be quite. The upshot was that the whole battalion was Court Marshalled and sent home in disgrace, which did not worry them one little bit as it got them out of that jungle hell
October 21st, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Now would have a German U Boat Captain taken the opportunity of sinking a major Royal Navy ship even if it was rescuing some of its fellow country men. Personally I think that there were more than a few out at the time that would have taken the shot.
MontyB. The side gets punished is the side that loses, and there were a huge number of Germans who should have been punished for war crimes that wasn't. Every thing at the time was matter fate, they could either be unlucky and picked out for punishment or they could be at the stage when the Allied Powers felt they had made enough examples of the war crimes and stepped back and let things settled down as they had made their point.
Like I said in the case of the Bismarck I can understand why the British ships moved off it was a case of safety first, on the other point I don't disagree that more people should have been charged with war crimes the Japanese Emperor included however that also should have included allied personnel that committed crimes as well, you do not prove your cause is more just than your enemy by emulating them..
October 22nd, 2008  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Well chum I agree whole heartily about your comments on the Japanese, my old Regiment was out there and when they came across a Japanese POW camp holding Allied POW they were so appalled that they hung all the Japanese guards and prisoners along the roads that they passed along. A Colonel on one of the Guards Regiments tried to intervene but some one stuck a Sten gun barrel up his nose and told him to be quite. The upshot was that the whole battalion was Court Marshalled and sent home in disgrace, which did not worry them one little bit as it got them out of that jungle hell
The Para's deserved a medal!
I am not aware of POW's in the hands of the Allies being beaten, starved, worked to death and mistreated as Allied POW's were by the Japanese. Some sources state that 51% of Allied POW's died at the hands of the Japanese. I for one fully understand the anger of the Para's and their actions. Before castigating the actions of the Para's, put yourselves in their boots.

Allied POW's in the hands of the Japanese had one of the highest death rates of POW's due to mistreatment. Many ex Japanese POW's who were lucky enough to survive their brutal captivity suffered for years afterwards. I worked with a former POW captured in Singapore and ended up on the Burma Railway, he was constantly in pain from his mistreatment and died well before his time because of that mistreatment and injuries he received.

One of my uncles (Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve) was a POW at Sandakan, originally taken prisoner on Java.

After the war there was no official information regarding his fate, whether he was dead or alive.

While I was stationed in Singapore I found his name on the walls of the Kranji war memorial as he had no known grave, I took photographs and sent them home to my family. However, I had no other information of how or where he died. I recently did a bit of digging and contacted Ron Taylor of FEPOW and was informed that my uncle died 26th March 1945 at the age of 22 of malaria (according to the Japanese). According to information received my uncle died during the Sandakan death marches from 1945/01/29, to Paginatan and Ranau. Out of the 2434 Sandakan prisoners, 1787 Australians and 641 British died, only 6 Australians survived by escaping.

The Japanese commander Captain Hoshijima Susumi, was hanged as a war criminal. After reading the story of the death marches, my only regret is, he didn't suffer as the POW's under his charge suffered. To be frank, hanging was too good for him.
October 23rd, 2008  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Some sources state that 51% of Allied POW's died at the hands of the Japanese.
BritinAfrica

Is this just Western troops or including Russian's?
 


Similar Topics
WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ!!
In '74 Thesis, The Seeds Of McCain's War Views
Two Decades Late
Estimates Of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close To Ballpark
Is War A Part Of A War Crime?