Napalm the bocage! - Page 8




 
--
 
December 20th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
A certain gentleman seems to be making up the history as he goes along, The rescue planes were considered fair game as they were returning battle harden pilots back in the fray, which meant they would probably soot down more British and commonwealth pilots. Talking about pilots I lived near RAF Station Biggin Hill as a lad and I met a number of Indian pilots and senior officers. Also the German fighters were happy to shoot up any one they saw around and even I as a young lad came under machine gun fire on more than occasion, and it was known for them to bomb and shoot up schools in there reign of terror.

Also he was on about the invasion Europe, now there were beach heads on D Day two were American two were British and one was Canadian, also of the six thousand ships that took part in the invasion two thirds were British and Canadian
Again I think we are missing the point, I have no doubt that rescued pilots would be returned to battle and I am not disputing that German fighters would shoot up anything that moved either just as Allied pilots did but to a large degree it is irrelevant as the only important thing to consider in all this is whether the 1929 Geneva Convention agreement stipulating that belligerents must respect each other's "mobile sanitary formations" such as field ambulances and hospital ships applied to Air/Sea Rescue.

Churchill's argument was that the agreement did not mention aircraft specifically therefore they were not covered yet most feel the term "mobile sanitary formations" covered all forms of vehicle used to move the injured, it is also worth noting that the RAF did not shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft rescuing RAF crews nor did they destroy pontoons built in 1940 by the Luftwaffe in waters where air emergencies were likely to provide downed pilots with food and shelter.

If we are to accept Churchill's side of this argument it should have been perfectly acceptable for Luftwaffe pilots to shoot RAF crews in parachutes as long as they were over enemy territory and vice versa as they had not surrendered and would have been back in combat within hours.
December 20th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Again I think we are missing the point, I have no doubt that rescued pilots would be returned to battle and I am not disputing that German fighters would shoot up anything that moved either just as Allied pilots did but to a large degree it is irrelevant as the only important thing to consider in all this is whether the 1929 Geneva Convention agreement stipulating that belligerents must respect each other's "mobile sanitary formations" such as field ambulances and hospital ships applied to Air/Sea Rescue.

Churchill's argument was that the agreement did not mention aircraft specifically therefore they were not covered yet most feel the term "mobile sanitary formations" covered all forms of vehicle used to move the injured,
I'm not missing the point Monty, if the aircraft were picking up battle fit pilots then I would consider it an abuse of red cross markings. As I said, its like ambulances being used to transport troops and equipment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
it is also worth noting that the RAF did not shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft rescuing RAF crews nor did they destroy pontoons built in 1940 by the Luftwaffe in waters where air emergencies were likely to provide downed pilots with food and shelter.

If we are to accept Churchill's side of this argument it should have been perfectly acceptable for Luftwaffe pilots to shoot RAF crews in parachutes as long as they were over enemy territory and vice versa as they had not surrendered and would have been back in combat within hours.
This did in fact happen, pilots were shot up as they descended by parachute. As far as I am aware the aircraft were painted cammo after being warned that they would be considered legitimate targets.
December 20th, 2011  
Der Alte
 
Gentlemen.
After reading this thread I would say that there are many good arguments.

To samneanderthal I want to say, that you have fallen into the old trap when you analyze history.

One of the cardinal sins of historical analysis is reductionism—reducing causes or motives or effects to a single one. Among non-professionals this often takes the form of "isn't the real reason just ..." or "this is basically a matter of ..." and other variations. It's an attempt to simplify historical events that otherwise seem hopelessly complex. It is also often a way for the writer to claim he sees behind the curtain, that all those other effects or motives in some sense are not real and that this one effect or motive trumps all the others. It's a way to pretend to see Truth where others do not. It is, in short, a rhetorical device. It emphatically is not doing history.

History provides understanding, not proof.

History provides insight, not analogy.

Grüss Gott.
Der Alte.

--
December 20th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Alte
Gentlemen.
After reading this thread I would say that there are many good arguments.

To samneanderthal I want to say, that you have fallen into the old trap when you analyze history.

One of the cardinal sins of historical analysis is reductionism—reducing causes or motives or effects to a single one. Among non-professionals this often takes the form of "isn't the real reason just ..." or "this is basically a matter of ..." and other variations. It's an attempt to simplify historical events that otherwise seem hopelessly complex. It is also often a way for the writer to claim he sees behind the curtain, that all those other effects or motives in some sense are not real and that this one effect or motive trumps all the others. It's a way to pretend to see Truth where others do not. It is, in short, a rhetorical device. It emphatically is not doing history.

History provides understanding, not proof.

History provides insight, not analogy.

Grüss Gott.
Der Alte.

Well said Sir
December 20th, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi 84RFK,
You're obviously not familiar with the French casualties incurred in carpet bombing, naval shelling, etc in Normandy, the Filipino causalties caused by American artillery in Manila, etc, Liberating is often expensive. Trees are certainly not a valuable asset, compared to humans and population density in the bocage was quite low. Placing nepalm with small planes is quite accurate, so much so that they destroyed many foxholes, etc,
I repeat: The strategy of the scorched earth is for defensive purposes, and thus not an option for an invading force, even less so if the objective is to liberate a friendly country.

For some reason you advocate napalm bombs for a job that could be done with flamethrowers, man-portable or tank-based, and I'm glad that you're not the one to liberate Paris.

God alone knows what that city would look like when you are finished with the task..
December 20th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Maybe he believes in, "Blow the lot to bits and let God sort them out."
December 20th, 2011  
lljadw
 
Trying to kill a German pilot who was leaving his aircraft above Germany/France (btw :the order was given not by Churchill,but by Dowding )was perfectly legal .Some one who is saying it was a crime,is talking nonsense.
The same happened at Narvik,where drowned German sailors tried to reach the mainland,where they would be rescued by the men of Dietl. They were shelled by the British navy .The Germans investigated the case,and their conclusion was that the British attitude was perfect legal .
December 20th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
I'd hate to be the flamethrower operator or flame tank crew approaching row after row of trees crowded with machine guns and Panzerschrecks.

The French went along with the Norway campaign, just because after their WW I experience, they wanted to keep the devastation away from France. Scorched earth or massive destruction applies to an offensive as well as to a defensive operation. There were millions of allied shells fired during the Somme, Verdun, etc, trying to liberate Belgian and French soil by wipiing out the enemy. Entire cities were shelled to oblivion. Like I said, in WW II carpet bombing in far more populated areas in France was deemed justified. You seem to have a fascination for Hedgerows.
December 20th, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
I'd hate to be the flamethrower operator or flame tank crew approaching row after row of trees crowded with machine guns and Panzerschrecks.

The French went along with the Norway campaign, just because after their WW I experience, they wanted to keep the devastation away from France. Scorched earth or massive destruction applies to an offensive as well as to a defensive operation. There were millions of allied shells fired during the Somme, Verdun, etc, trying to liberate Belgian and French soil by wipiing out the enemy. Entire cities were shelled to oblivion. Like I said, in WW II carpet bombing in far more populated areas in France was deemed justified. You seem to have a fascination for Hedgerows.
Very well, you have sucsessfully landed on the beaches of Normandy, you are about to clear the hedgerows with napalm, so I guess Paris is next...

Goodbye Paris.

Fascination for hedgerows, not at all, but I spendt 17 years as a volunteer firefighter in the forestry.
December 20th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
What does a wildfire in the dry summer with continuous vegetation have in common with farmland separated by a few lines of trees in extremely wet weather?. The hedgerow trees represent less than 5% of the land or the farmers would starve.
 


Similar Topics
WW2 Trivia
Air Force Cadence
Pentagon confirms using white phosphorous in Iraq
US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq