Blimey I wouldn't want to get on this guys bad side

Well, they would say they were POWs wouldn’t they…

…but they looked like partisans to me and since I can shoot partisans without trial…..bang! Problem solved! :diablo:

Good point…..and all those Russia Partisans (or suspected partisans), all those French Resistance fighters and, come to think of it, those fifty POW that were shot following the Great Escape, none of them were wearing a recognisable uniform either…

…maybe we’ve misjudged Hitler and the Third-Reich all these years! :diablo:

The fifty POW’s would have been covered unless wearing enemy uniform. The partisans, resistance etc were all terrorists.

Am I wrong in thinking that to have protection from the Geneva Convention you need to be a uniformed combatant from a country that is a signatory?

Yes, certainly since 1949, and Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Before then? Not sure.

Moggy

Looking a few decades forward to Afghanistan, are the Taliban classed as guerillas or terrorists? If the latter (ie not weraing a recognisable uniform) then unless the Geneva Convention has been modified they have no protection and are legitimately allowed to be executed without trial, no?

Good point…..and all those Russia Partisans (or suspected partisans), all those French Resistance fighters and, come to think of it, those fifty POW that were shot following the Great Escape, none of them were wearing a recognisable uniform either…

…maybe we’ve misjudged Hitler and the Third-Reich all these years! :diablo:

Am I wrong in thinking that to have protection from the Geneva Convention you need to be a uniformed combatant from a country that is a signatory?

This would leave the Jews, Homosexuals and other ‘undesirables’ (to the Nazi regime) as an internal affair with no protection afforded from the Geneva Convention anyway which makes it irrelevant. Looking a few decades forward to Afghanistan, are the Taliban classed as guerillas or terrorists? If the latter (ie not weraing a recognisable uniform) then unless the Geneva Convention has been modified they have no protection and are legitimately allowed to be executed without trial, no?

From memory both Russia and Japan were non-signatories and therefore not bound by the GC. I may be wrong on this, I don’t really have much involvement in things warlike these days.

Back to the topic in hand, interesting war story. I couldn’t care less about the fate of the German, even if he hadn’t done it i’m with Dowding.

Acts of chivalry in warfare probably aren’t as rare as one might expect. Thirty years ago, during the Falklands War, British Sea Harrier pilots came across three armed Argentine T-34 Turbo-Mentors. The Argentine pilots spotted, or were warned of, the Sea Harriers and jettisoned their weapons and headed for the safety of cloud but the British pilots still gave chase and, in one case, used 30mm cannon-fire against the Argentine aircraft (damaging one slightly).

The odd thing was that all the Sea Harriers were armed with Sidewinder missiles and could easily have destroyed all the Argentine aircraft (and killed their pilots) had they fired them when they spotted the enemy but this was not done as, apparently, it was considered ‘unsporting’. This was early in the conflict, before any British loss of life, so maybe attitudes would have changed later but I believe that it wasn’t the only instance during the Falklands where an, almost certain, missile-kill was replaced with something that often allowed the enemy to escape to fight-another-day.

Above all it should not be forgotten that most ordinary soldiers, at least British and American ones, during the Second World War were not ‘killers’ and even in the most intense action many, many soldiers would simply not fire their individual weapons. This also was a factor in exaggerating the effectiveness of crew-served weapons (people will notice if you’re not doing your bit on a tank, artillery piece or machine-gun).

The same was not so true, it seems, for some German, Russian and Japanese soldiers; post-war analysis by the Allies was somewhat surprised by the effectiveness of German troops, for example. It seems that no matter what the circumstances certain German units always seemed to cause a far greater toll of casualties against the units opposing them, in attack or defence, even when they were outnumbered or relatively poorly equipped. This ‘effectiveness’ was of great interest to the victorious Allies and a great deal of time and effort was taken investigating it; it wasn’t just down to experience, although that was a factor, there was something more.

…for every act of murder by pilots, ground troops or navy on every side was far outweighed by acts of mercy and compassion.

Exactly; even if we scour the whole of the Second World War I think we’d find relatively few cases of cold-blooded murder between, say, British and German forces.

Of course, those statistics will be very different if we examine Soviet-German or British-Japanese conflict during the same war.

I know where I’d choose to fight if I had to!

Forty days

WD40 is only good for forty days (and nights). Once more God knows!

Dowding took the view that to machine gun a pilot in his parachute as he descended over ‘home’ territory was allowable – thus accepting that the Luftwaffe had a perfect entitlement to do this to RAF pilots descending over the UK. He took the view that aircrew descending over enemy territory were already POW, and thus had to be afforded the rights of the Geneva convention

Let not the above point from Andy get lost.

There is a lot of misinformation about chivalry and rights under conventions. War was nasty and brutal.

Take the US paratroopers in the Cotentin Peninsula on June 6th. Much is made of some of them being shot whilst hanging from trees and telegraphs wires.

Little is heard of the fact that once on the ground they were never going to take any prisoners. Surrender to the 82nd, or 101st Airborne and you were dead moments later.

Peterson did what was necessary, and I can’t hold his anger against him.

Moggy

Two or more countries may choose [or not] to go to war BUT it is the individuals in the war that follow orders or make decisions that will affect them and others for the rest of their lives.
Personally i am not sure if i could kill someone i could see but shooting at a machine where there is a chance of survival –possibly in war.
All the people involved have got to live with what they did.

war

Don’t get me wrong; I’m realistic about war and know that no convention would be followed to-the-letter (and it could only be self-policed by those in conflict with each-other anyway) but I think it goes against human-nature for even soldiers to want to kill in cold-blood.

Thats a good point, what Peterson saw and did that day must have happened
a thousand times throughout the war, but for every act of murder by pilots,
ground troops or navy on every side was far outweighed by acts of mercy
and compassion. I do wonder though how many old men went to the grave riddled with guilt and regret knowing that something they did at that time was so wrong.

The whole point of war is winning by whatever means at your disposal.

Absolutely not! That is only the case if ‘winning’ is the only measure of success in the war and the peace that follows; it also ignores completely any notion of morality.

The Bomber Command attack on Dresden is often cited as a war-crime even in the context of a war started by Germany and with an unparalleled scale of atrocity carried-out by the Nazi regime; how much more ‘whatever means’ would it take for the Allies to be viewed no differently from the Nazi regime they were fighting?

Controlling Guidlines? You make it sound like it should be conducted like a Cricket match with a break for refreshments!

Well, why shouldn’t it; if an agreement can be reached between those fighting?

Unless you’re actually trying to destroy civilization by expecting war to be the normal state-of-affairs, lasting indefinitely, some sort of guidelines are just common-sense. If you asked every individual soldier or civilian I’m sure that most would want protection from some sort of convention; so why not?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m realistic about war and know that no convention would be followed to-the-letter (and it could only be self-policed by those in conflict with each-other anyway) but I think it goes against human-nature for even soldiers to want to kill in cold-blood.

The Geneva Convention didn’t stop unimaginable horrors on the battlefronts of those nations that bothered to follow it but that doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as pointless…

…the war was bad enough without wishing somehow we could make it worse!

Of course, it’s ever been so. Agincourt, 1415. After three hours of bloody, ****ty and muddy hand to hand combat the English were gaining the upper hand and had taken many French prisoners.

Then news arrived of a possible French rally.

‘In this crisis, Henry gave the only order possible…he commanded his men to kill all except their most eminent prisoners “lest they would involve us in utter disaster in the fighting that would ensue.” ‘

(From Agincourt, by Juliet Barker)

‘****ty’ is quite deliberate, by the way. Dysentery was rife, and even though it sounds like a bad joke, people did have the uncontrollable trots in full suits of armour. Not nice.

One hopes the nails are rust proof.

Nah I have sprayed them with WD40 and sharpened them for the first person who says “We had God on our side!”:D

We didn’t ‘take’ the moral high ground…..we ‘had’ the moral high ground!

Surely the important point of war is not ‘winning’ but to be on the side of ‘right’.

Therefore the Geneva Convention (or whatever) isn’t ‘tosh’ and wherever circumstances realistically allow wars should be fought within some sort of controlling guidelines.

The whole point of war is winning by whatever means at your disposal. It is a bl00dy nasty business, you fight for your Country the rest is up to the nice safe politicans(except Airey Neave DSO and a few others on a jolly at the Grand Hotel Brighton) Yes my war was “The Troubles”

Controlling Guidlines? You make it sound like it should be conducted like a Cricket match with a break for refreshments!

We fought for our lives during the Blitz on such places as London,Coventry,Liverpool,Bristol and I could go on and on. Our side destroyed Dresden which was of no military significance. British Civilian deaths were 67000 during the war.

Paul, this isn’t personally aimed at you but I do wish people would stop repeating that tosh about Dresden!

At the time it was bombed, it was one of the primary logistical points for the German Army on the southern sector of the Eastern Front. It had extensive railway marshaling yards, a vital transshipment port for goods being barged along the Elbe and key railway and road bridges over the river. It was of immense importance to the German war effort at the time. All of those targets were in the middle of the old/new city and as you mentioned, given the Blitz and the ongoing V weapon attacks collateral damage to the civilian population fell firmly under the category of “Tough Luck”.

One hopes the nails are rust proof.

Creaking Door has, I think, just nailed the whole thing.

Regards,

kev35

Save for those who have experienced war, I do not think we have the faintest idea of what it was really like.

What I will remind you of is that there are a great many here who have and will have experienced war first hand and that post first hand opinions.

Others have never experienced anything except COD or some other rubbish on their Play station who post their view of war while slightly warped with computer generated scenes and television images of war their view is as important as the next man.

And others like myself who have never experienced war but who have cleared defined views on war and what is important and what is not.

I feel this thread has given a really good discussion for once with some really well thought out opinions. I have to say I agree with a lot of what is being said for once and on both sides of the opinion too.

Interesting very interesting.

Therfore we could take the moral high ground.

We didn’t ‘take’ the moral high ground…..we ‘had’ the moral high ground!

Surely the important point of war is not ‘winning’ but to be on the side of ‘right’. History, in the fullness of time, will record which side was on (or closer to) the side of ‘right’ and the sacrifice of those that fought and died and the pride (or not) with which we remember a conflict and their sacrifice is always affected by the way in which the conflict was conducted.

Therefore the Geneva Convention (or whatever) isn’t ‘tosh’ and wherever circumstances realistically allow wars should be fought within some sort of controlling guidelines.