German court rules Nazi reprisal executions justified

[Boris Godunov]

Ned:

Attacking fleeing troops and attacking troops that are being transported to the front to fight against you are two different things, wouldn't you say?

[chequita guevara]

I think retreating troops are fair game in certain circumstances. Had the Allies been going to Bagdad, then slaughtering those soldiers on the Highway of Death would have been legitmate, because if they escaped, they could be rearmed and fight you. However, since they were fleeing an occupied country, and we were only supposed to liberate the country, it then became a war crime. Killing those soldiers was unnecessary.

In the case of troops on a transport train or saying a troop ship being torpedoed by a sub, they are legitimate targets of war. Even if they aren't fighting you now, they might be fighting you or your comrades later.

[SpencerH]

I think most of you guys should hope you never have to be at one end or the other of a rifle. I wouldnt predict a long survival time for some of you.

I have not been able to find any information on who the 59 men were that Engels admits he had shot except that they were from some local prison. It does not say anywhere that I could find that they were POW which means that could have been considered partisans (and therefore exempt from the Geneva conventions).

[Ned]

I think it is permissible to torpedo the troop ship or shoot the locomotive or blow up all the convoy trucks. But once that is done, there should be an obligation to call a halt to the killing. It was common practice even in WWI and WWII to rescue troops floating in the water. To continue to machine gun them rather than take them prisioner where possible is simply not morally acceptable.

Also, I have no idea why partisans, once captured, are not POW's. Is this the position Bush is taking with the al Qaida "detainees?" Are they legally partisans and therefor do not have the rights of POWs?

SpencerH, no I haven't been in combat. However, I do know we were outraged when German troops in the Battle of the Bulge massacred Allied troops who had surrendered.

What are you opinions of the terrorist attack on the US marine barracks in Lebanon in, what, 1982? Was this a legitimate partisan attack or a war cirmie?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
SpencerH, no I haven't been in combat. However, I do know we were outraged when German troops in the Battle of the Bulge massacred Allied troops who had surrendered.

Yeah, but did we make a stink when our troops did the same thing to the Germans? No.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think most of you guys should hope you never have to be at one end or the other of a rifle. I wouldnt predict a long survival time for some of you.

Don't look at me, my kind isn't allowed...

[Ned]

Just one small point on the present case against Engel: the ruling of the court was that reprisals, per se, were justified. The case against Engel goes forward because of the cruelty of his executions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yeah, but did we make a stink when our troops did the same thing to the Germans? No.

In WWII.

But in Vietnam and Desert Storm, the media was all over our massacres.

And, let me add, the American people were sickened by them.

[Ecthy]

SpencerH - IIRC, engeld didn't shoot them but ordered it. And in my opinion those Italian soldieres were not "fair game" at all, although I doubt there can ever be any such thing as a fair game when it comes to stuff like that. He shouldn't be punished anyway, they should have done all that in the 50s already. As a precondition to that, the victors would have had to be less we're-victors-so-we're-basically'gods-like in the Nuremburg trials, but what the heck.-

[Arrian]

Desert Storm highlighted one of the difficulties of modern (standoff) combat:

Much of the damage done - and all of the damage done on the highway of death - was done from the air. It's tough for fleeing ground troops to surrender to a helicopter, or for the helicopter pilot to determine that they're trying to surrender.

See, fleeing troops are fair game, as far as I'm concerned, so long as the war is ongoing. But if they surrender, they are PoW's, and therefore protected. So the question is did the Iraqi troops slaughtered on the highway of death wish to surrender and be spared, or where they retreating in order to regroup and fight? I think now it's fairly obvious that they were broken and fleeing en masse, and were surrendering to any coalition troops they encountered. But it took some time for us to realize it.

The other issue with Desert Storm was the limited scope of the war. In the context of WWII, which was an all-out, knock-down, drag-out slugfest, allowing enemy troops to escape so they can fight you again would be stupid. So you bomb the crap out of 'em, even if they've been routed. But we weren't trying to take over Iraq. We were there to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Therefore, while I'm not sure it was a "war crime" it may have been excessive. I honestly don't think even our commanders were prepared for how superior our forces were, and how devastating the attack would turn out to be.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

Conclusion: no soldier is ever fair game, war should be forbidden.

Case closed.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned
I think it is permissible to torpedo the troop ship or shoot the locomotive or blow up all the convoy trucks. But once that is done, there should be an obligation to call a halt to the killing.

Why? The objective in war is to kill the enemy not to be some kind of chivalrous knight.

It was common practice even in WWI and WWII to rescue troops floating in the water. To continue to machine gun them rather than take them prisioner where possible is simply not morally acceptable.

The alternative in some cases is to let them drown. Thats not to say that I would personally agree with such actions.

Also, I have no idea why partisans, once captured, are not POW's. Is this the position Bush is taking with the al Qaida "detainees?" Are they legally partisans and therefor do not have the rights of POWs?

In order to be considered as a soldier and thus a POW if captured you must wear a uniform and be identifiable as a combatant. Partisans blur the distinction between combatants and non-combatants and are therefore treated in the same fashion as spies or criminals. As for Al Queda, they were not part of any Afghan army and AFAIK many or most were not Afghani. I'd classify them as partisans/mercenaries and try them as such in front of a military tribunal.

SpencerH, no I haven't been in combat. However, I do know we were outraged when German troops in the Battle of the Bulge massacred Allied troops who had surrendered.

We won that war so we got to say who were the "bad guys"

What are you opinions of the terrorist attack on the US marine barracks in Lebanon in, what, 1982? Was this a legitimate partisan attack or a war cirmie?

Well since it was an action against a military target, I'd classify it as a partisan rather than a terrorist attack. If we had captured any of those partisans, on the other hand, I wouldnt have granted them POW status. I'd have tried them as murderers and once convicted by a military tribunal I'd have hung them.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH


The alternative in some cases is to let them drown. Thats not to say that I would personally agree with such actions.
.

Gee, is it more fun to drown after being shot?

[SpencerH]

So let me ask you "chivalrous" types this ?

If I'm a sniper and I shoot from concealment with a nightscope and a silenced rifle from a distance where you dont have a hope in hell of spotting me, Is that OK? You're virtually a sitting duck with no more chance than the fleeing Iraqi army.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Gee, is it more fun to drown after being shot?

I dont know.


Heres as inane a question would you rather drown, or be shot?