Battle of Britain question

What you continually fail to do is to address the issue from anything other than the rather narrow, and now known to be flawed, military perspective. The military really doesn’t give a damn if civilians are caught up in the the killing because they are trained not to care so the counter to that is why should civilians subscribe to a set of values that says that the military are somehow exempt from bearing the brunt of their **** ups while civilians are not allowed to take action to make the cause of their suffering pay the price. So we come back to my original premise which is that any civilian who suffers damage or injury at the hands of the military is perfectly justified in correcting that wrong in whatever manner is the most effective if their own military is not doing so.

So if I was a citizen of some non-military area of a town and had some thug destroy my house or my family because they couldn’t be bothered seeking out the military target they were directed to attack (if they couldn’t find it they shouldn’t just drop their bombs willy nilly as both sides did) then I have a perfect right to make sure that the people that created the carnage directed at me never do it again and the simplest way is to make the experience of capture so bad for them that they will become instant pacifists unwilling to attack civilians ever again and therefore unwilling ever to serve in the military.

I can see the logic of your argument, or at least what you hoped would be achieved, however I think there are some pretty serious flaws in your argument also.

In WW2 the inability to bomb military targets wasn’t due to not being ‘bothered’; the only way to avoid hitting ‘civilian’ targets was to stop bombing completely (over land). For example I lived in Coventry for a while across a (narrow) road from the old Armstrong-Whitworth factory; my bed was probably twenty-five feet from the factory wall, not the site wall, the outside wall of the production-line buildings.

Nobody could bomb that factory effectively in WW2 without some bombs, almost certainly, destroying civilian housing; very likely more bombs would hit houses than hit the factory but that wouldn’t stop it being bombed. If it did then governments back then would probably have moved ‘human shield’ civilians into the factories instead of evacuating them!

Also, letting the enemy aircrew know that the civil population planned to lynch any of them that baled-out would almost certainly be counter-productive. It would be the perfect propaganda victory for the enemy; it would prove how barbaric their enemy was and only encourage bombing (especially if aircrew had already been lynched, or their own propaganda said that aircrew had been lynched). It wouldn’t do much to promote bombing accuracy either; why care where your bombs land if they’re likely to land on somebody who has publicly said they would lynch you?

This is pretty much what happened to Japan during WW2; the Japanese (very publicly) executed three of the very first American bomber crew members they captured (Doolittle Raid) but that didn’t stop the United States raining-down the worst (conventional) bombing of the entire war on civilian areas of Japan. The American aircrews were all volunteers, they were ordered to bomb Japan and they did so; in fact the knowledge of the executions may well have encouraged them.

My point is that that when any country is in a declared war (not these acts of international criminality we indulge in now where wars aren’t declared and governments send in troops to advance the financial interests of their backers, e.g. the Gulf Wars) all the country is involved. Civilians are directed by their government into jobs made necessary by the war’s requirements and the military is subject to obey or be disciplined instructions by the representatives of government in the person of their commanders. WW2 was fought on that basis and that is why it was a total war – military and civilians were in it equally and were all considered legitimate targets by both sides. The only difference between the two was that civilians were prevented by law from fighting back – they were just there as cannon fodder. Well ****** that for a joke.

Therefore when the civilians are considered legitimate targets not just the military they therefore have a perfectly clear legitimate, and in fact essential right, to take the fight to the enemy to defend themselves. If they are being bombed then it is clear that their paid servants the military have failed to protect them so they must themselves become part of the fight to protect themselves.

So if I was a citizen of some non-military area of a town and had some thug destroy my house or my family because they couldn’t be bothered seeking out the military target they were directed to attack (if they couldn’t find it they shouldn’t just drop their bombs willy nilly as both sides did) then I have a perfect right to make sure that the people that created the carnage directed at me never do it again and the simplest way is to make the experience of capture so bad for them that they will become instant pacifists unwilling to attack civilians ever again and therefore unwilling ever to serve in the military. That’s the basic ethos instilled into recruits so it also should be a part of civilian thinking. Why do you think the atom bombs were used against the Japanese – they were used because the Allies knew that that ethos pervaded the Japanese culture and they knew the casualties of any invaders would be horrific. It is also the same reason why no nation has ever attempted to control North Korea with the obvious military solution – the cost to any invader would be too high. If a nation wants to ensure it is left in peace it has to foster those extreme attitudes.

It needn’t mean a loss of rights at home all it means is that another country will think twice before attempting a military invasion. Perhaps if we had had it in the last half of the 20th century we would have avoided the corruption of the various excursions on behalf of oil companies that created the Gulf Wars and the uncontrollable mess we have now, or wars like Vietnam without honour or purpose except to make suppliers of military equipment richer than they already are.

There are no high moral values in war, the basic truth it is kill or be killed and high moral values went the way of the dodo the moment civilians ceased to be collateral damage and came to be considered legitimate targets. That is now the way things are done and therefore civilians owe to themselves to take every effort to ensure that anyone who attacks them comes out of it in far worse condition than when they went in. Perhaps then governments might start to find better ways of sorting out their mainly self-created problems.

No doubt you are aware that my attitude is an expression of my personal reaction to violence or any form of attack directed at me for which I offered no provocation so I don’t see what your reply means beyond confirming my argument with your example that the military is not subject to the same constraints of positive identification that the rest of us are expected to conform to…

In the past, as far as aerial-bombing was concerned, the military couldn’t be subject to the same constraints of positive identification. And mostly they accepted that they couldn’t and bombed anyway; and sometimes the whole strategy of their bombing campaign was defined by the fact that they couldn’t be subject to the same constraints, such as the ‘area-bombing’ of German cities by RAF Bomber Command.

I cannot argue with what you feel you have a ‘right’ to do but I will say, given the extreme nature of aerial-bombing in the Second World War and the number of people who did have their ‘house bombed’, that the instances of reprisals against shot-down enemy aircrew seem to be incredibly rare, even in Nazi-Germany, where the state was not averse to extreme treatment of prisoners-of-war.

As I’ve said, the chances of the ‘right’ shot-down enemy airman falling into convenient captivity for you as a civilian to extract your revenge are astronomically low anyway (if you stick to your narrow definition), maybe that explains the low number of reprisals, even if said airman is defenceless. And what must the chances be against enemy ground troops or artillery? You’d be outnumbered, outgunned and, if you had any choice, out of the way, so the conditions of means, motive and opportunity would almost never exist for any sort of retribution.

Outside of those rare circumstances, if you did exact any retribution from a captured enemy, you would be governed by the same lack of rules over ‘positive identification’ that the military frequently are.

Perhaps the most well known example is the BBC radio reporter who was commentating on ships being bombed in the Channel during the Battle. When he saw a fighter coming down he was excitedly reporting how “Gosh I’ve never seen anything quite like this _ there he goes” etc and the irony was that he was cheering a British fighter being shot down! I think he was later reprimanded for un_English behaviour!

Wasn’t at least one German pilot beaten to death by crowds? I recall the story as it being a pilot who’d bombed Buckingham Palace – but that just could just be the propaganda spin.

Off a hazy memory he landed in the East End where the area was hit pretty hard during the bombing.
There is an existing thread here abouts that details the darker side of civilians and captured pilots.

No doubt CD you are aware that my attitude is an expression of my personal reaction to violence or any form of attack directed at me for which I offered no provocation so I don’t see what your reply means beyond confirming my argument with your example that the military is not subject to the same constraints of positive identification that the rest of us are expected to conform to. The gratuitous killing of people just because they bear a passing resemblance to someone who attacked us previously is an all too frequent feature of military operations since WW2. Especially given that we now rarely fight wars where uniforms are worn by our opponents. And I can fully sympathise with any innocent people who are caught up in the chaos of any nation’s military failure to properly identify targets. Besides such episodes are not good if one is trying to achieve some propaganda benefits.

So my attitude is if an individual or nation is to have some reasonable chance of security from unprovoked attack then they must foster the belief in people or nations who might attack them that they will react with the vicious ferocity of a disturbed wasps’ nest towards any attack. If they have any sense people generally do not disturb wasps’ nest repeatedly. But if they do then they deserve everything that happens to them. There are no points to be won or any beneficial result of allowing oneself or one’s nation to be a victim of military stupidity or laziness. So if you are attacked make it plain to the attacker that it was the greatest mistake they could ever make. Quite simple really – after all it is the rule at the heart of the MAD doctrine that stopped the Cold War from getting hot.

…that I as a civilian who has just been attacked by members of a foreign military force without my approval nor due to any actions committed against them by me personally should just sit back and accept their behaviour as being perfectly justified.

I can honestly say that if I was in a position where I had caught a person who had just bombed my house or inflicted injury on me or my family at the behest of their government then I would also react the same way…

And in those very rare circumstances there might be some justification; in the circumstance where you actually caught the person who had ‘just bombed your house’.

But in reality that attitude is one that almost inevitably leads to the justification of all sorts of atrocities because if you can’t catch the person who ‘just bombed your house’ maybe you can catch ‘him’ a few weeks later, or maybe you can catch one of his comrades, because he is just as guilty with all his indiscriminate bombing, right?

And remember, your problem with ‘them’ was that their attack on you hadn’t been ‘due to any actions committed against them by me personally‘!

Still, those peasants we shot certainly looked like the partisans that shot at us the other day!

As might be expected, I support every sentiment and agree with every word. If our enemies knew that this kind of robust response was the standard, it might just give cause for thought regarding the certain consequences.

(Malcolm) And if you say this was a normal reaction to the murder of innocent aircrew, I hope in future you know the facts, before posting.

He actually said it was a natural reaction. I doubt anyone familiar with the range of human responses could sensibly dispute this.

I find it impossible to categorise this as ‘endorsing’. ‘Explaining’ might have been a better description Matt.

Moggy

Well it is a contentious subject as I originally said but what in effect Matt and Duggy are saying is that I as a civilian who has just been attacked by members of a foreign military force without my approval nor due to any actions committed against them by me personally should just sit back and accept their behaviour as being perfectly justified. And not only that but I should also rush to their aid and succour should they be in any way harmed in that attack on me, or find themselves the target of other angry people upset by their thuggish behaviour – pull the other one folks.

I don’t know about Matt and Duggy but I take all attempts to do me physical harm as personal attacks on me – I don’t care if they are the military servants of another country or even servants of the country I’m a citizen of. If someone commits an unjustified attack on me then ****** them – they started it and if I can I will finish it. I can only assume that Duggy and Matt live in a world where they happily turn the other cheek and say “that’s alright old chap, I know that you are only following orders and I must accept that any injury I suffered and the loss of my home and possessions is nothing personal – here have a nice cup of tea and I’ll find a phone so I can ring up your chaps and tell them where to pick you up. I hope we meet again under similar circumstances”. I wonder what the resistance forces in occupied Europe, or an inmate at Auschwitz would have said to that peculiar ideal.

Military conduct code demands that military personnel if captured will be treated fairly as POWs. All fine and very cosy but that doesn’t extend to civilians who in every war since time began have been universally treated as easy targets by both sides. It was WW2 which saw the concept of total war universally accepted to the point that the German Einsatzgruppen in eastern Europe slaughtered everyone they came across; the mass bombing of cities by both sides was accepted as quite justified, the sinking of passenger liners by submarines and aircraft of both sides became common military practice; columns of refugees were attacked – the list of killing civilians is endless.

The vast majority of the casualties of WW2 were civilians not military forces and those civilian casualties happened because it is easier for the military of both sides to kill civilians than it is to kill trained service personnel. Casual slaughter that occurred because these hapless people just happened to be in the way of military forces, and that has been the philosophy of war ever since it began. And in economic terms the greatest amount by far of property and resource destruction in wars is inflicted on civilian resources as is the cost and labour of repairing the damage – insurance companies tend to exclude war damage from coverage. Wars are not things to be gone into lightly and they should be as horrific as possible to continually remind us that we should not get into them in the first place.

Thanks to the universal acceptance of mass slaughter of civilians in WW2 we now live in a world where there is now no longer any attempt to separate civilian and military targets. Just ask the citizens of Hanoi, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan – countries everywhere in the world, the military architects of the Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy or the operators of UAV predators, and the victims of idealistically driven terrorists with military objectives in Europe and world-wide. So as a civilian I say I have the absolute right to vent my anger on any military personnel, either in or out of uniform, that are trying to do me harm. If they behave and leave me alone, I’ll behave and leave them alone – not too much to ask is it.

I spent fourteen years of my life in Rüsselsheim, my apartment/flat was 500m from the memorial.
(Malcolm) And if you say this was a normal reaction to the murder of innocent aircrew, I hope in future you know the facts, before posting.

Malcolmtent is a truly special breed of humanoid. Sounds like in his brain he can justify the murder of any airman, of any nationality, who baled out and was set upon by an angry mob. Like in this example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCsselsheim_massacre

I suppose he would have endorsed the murder of RAF Tornado navigator John Nichol and his pilot, John Peters, prisoners of war in Iraqi custody during the Persian Gulf War. Or just their torture and abuse, such as Peters describes from about the 3:00 mark in this interview:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/persian-gulf-war/desert-storm-pilot-relives-capture-release/4720787515001

Oh yeah, they didn’t fall into the hands of civilians.

A truly special breed…that’s Malcolmtent.

A very fair point Malcolm, I would have probably felt the same. A pity we have had wars but we have.

Perfectly natural reaction by civilians caught up in events in which they were the victims of the attacks and over which they had no control. I know that this will stir some resentment and opposition but I can honestly say that if I was in a position where I had caught a person who had just bombed my house or inflicted injury on me or my family at the behest of their government then I would also react the same way. I most certainly would not rush out and give them first aid or a calming cup of tea.

WW2 was total war whichever way you look at it and therefore the civilians have just as much right to attack anyone who attacks them as do the military – the various WW2 resistance fighters being a prime example. In fact since WW2 that is now how the majority of wars are fought – there are no dividing lines in this age of guerrillas between those who don’t wear uniforms and those who do who mistakenly strike non-military targets. Perhaps if more people reacted in an aggressive fashion towards any military efforts directed at them governments might begin to find other ways of sorting out their differences.

Wasn’t at least one German pilot beaten to death by crowds? I recall the story as it being a pilot who’d bombed Buckingham Palace – but that just could just be the propaganda spin.

Edit – actually I think it was this one I was recalling:

“On 15 Sep 40 a Dornier Do17Z of 1 Staffel, Kampfgeschwader 76 was shot down over London, it crashed on Victoria Station after some of the crew baled out. Oberleutnant Robert Zehbe (born 9 Dec 1913 Kiel) landed by parachute in Kennington, London. He was captured and beaten to death by a mob of civilians”

Plenty of Allied airmen were also lynched, a terrible thing regardless of which country the victims fought for.

We lived in an elevated position in the village of Elham, the front of our bungalow faced almost due east and the front lawn gave us a good view of the sky. I certainly remember watching the twisting contrails, and the aircraft wheeling about and hearing the bursts of fire. Also seeing an Me109 zooming across the village and crashing onto the hill a few hundred yards away from us, and another going down almost vertically about half a mile away. I could still take you to the spots where they crashed. Another powerful memory is being in our allotment with my father when there was a dogfight overhead and 4 aircraft wewnt down wothin a mile or two of us. The doctors house was just across the road approached by a flight of steps with a low wall each side. The doctor had been called out when two men were brought in and carried up the steps and one sat on the walls each side at the top, shouting at each other, while between them stood a soldier with a rifle. They were waiting for the doctor to come to attend them. Saw no more as my father took us home.

Wasn’t at least one German pilot beaten to death by crowds? I recall the story as it being a pilot who’d bombed Buckingham Palace – but that just could just be the propaganda spin.

Edit – actually I think it was this one I was recalling:

“On 15 Sep 40 a Dornier Do17Z of 1 Staffel, Kampfgeschwader 76 was shot down over London, it crashed on Victoria Station after some of the crew baled out. Oberleutnant Robert Zehbe (born 9 Dec 1913 Kiel) landed by parachute in Kennington, London. He was captured and beaten to death by a mob of civilians”

To answer the OP’s question: Yes!

Plenty of evidence, including my own mother’s testimony of running down the road cheering as a Messerschmitt 110 was brought down in flames on 27 September 1940 and the victorious Hurricane pilot then performed a ‘victory roll’ for the benefit of the watchers below.

The question instantly reminded me of this: