Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[Splitter]

I understand the thought process of not shooting an enemy in the back, but the reality is that retreat is not surrender. Retreat is often characterized as a strategic withdrawal. The common soldiers did not know when the war was going to end. News was often conflicting or non-existent. So unless the other guy is surrendering, he is still an enemy.

Even surrender is not always surrender. There were more than a few instances of soldiers, especially in the Pacific, who came out under white flags with grenades or guns looking to take down a few conquerors with them.

Add to all of that the fact that the German and Russians fought a brutal war against one another. There was often no quarter given and none accepted. There was a good chance that capture meant death so soldiers fought desperately.

Crimes happened on all sides, they always do. But in some cases those crimes were common, in others they were the anomaly. We all know of instances like the Rape of Nanking where such "crimes" were the policy. However, to show all sides being equal, people like to focus on other incidents committed by one or a small number of soldiers. All things were not, in fact, equal.

Just think about it this way: you are an enemy soldier in WWII, to which countries would you rather surrender? We know who treated their prisoners "well" and who treated them brutally as policy, don't we?

Some of it depends on which country you were fighting for. Germany tended to treat British and American prisoners reasonably well and vice versa. Then again, there seemed to be a special hatred between German and Russian troops and neither side had a good track record of treating the other's prisoners very well.

Splitter

[swiss]

As Pilot best option was to get shot down over, or lost in Switzerland.

We detained them in hotels in Bernese Alps.

[Avimimus]

Canadian soldiers also "took no prisoners" on several occasions (including near the end of the war). Such war crimes are often committed by soldiers with limited combat experience, however, there also seems to be a rule that soldiers from any country will tend to commit atrocities if the war goes on long enough (and their superiors/home country tolerates the crimes). Instead of allowing crimes to take place or not punishing them, there are also cases where warcrimes are part of a strategic choice. Given the right 'logic' and public indifference or support conscious policies to target civilians are also possible in many more societies than we'd like to pretend (eg. Canadian's firebombing Germany, NATO strategic nuclear arms).

It should be said that this in no way removes the burden from any country that committed atrocities, or failed to prevent or prosecute those committing atrocities. The disturbing thing about some of the killings of civilians that have come to light recently (Iraq, Afghanistan) is that the public has been 'prepared' enough not to be shocked and there is a growing sense that such crimes are "worth overlooking" for the greater cause.

In the case of Germany there was something unusual which was politically and culturally very deeply wrong - German troops committed atrocities against Italian civilians and even German civilians by the end of the war (althoguh, the scale of these atrocities is much less than those committed on the eastern front, in Warsaw or in the former Yugoslavia).

The point I'm making, is simply that all societies - to a greater or lesser degree - are capable of creating these types of situations or atrocities and that it is our responsibility - each single person in each country in the world - to ensure that:
- they are remembered
- that they are never condoned or minimised
- that we create a world where they are not possible

We are all responsible - not Stalin or Hitler or 'bomber' Harris or the Joint Chiefs - not a few 'bad apples' in the lower ranks - not the fact that the other side committed atrocities first or refuses to follow the 'rules' or the brutality of war itself.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think Avinimus summed it up quite nicely.

The moment i think i'm above the law, or even common sense as to what constitutes basic human rights, is the moment i justify my opponents to use the same methods against me

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Canadian soldiers also "took no prisoners" on several occasions (including near the end of the war). Such war crimes are often committed by soldiers with limited combat experience, however, there also seems to be a rule that soldiers from any country will tend to commit atrocities if the war goes on long enough (and their superiors/home country tolerates the crimes). Instead of allowing crimes to take place or not punishing them, there are also cases where warcrimes are part of a strategic choice. Given the right 'logic' and public indifference or support conscious policies to target civilians are also possible in many more societies than we'd like to pretend (eg. Canadian's firebombing Germany, NATO strategic nuclear arms).

It should be said that this in no way removes the burden from any country that committed atrocities, or failed to prevent or prosecute those committing atrocities. The disturbing thing about some of the killings of civilians that have come to light recently (Iraq, Afghanistan) is that the public has been 'prepared' enough not to be shocked and there is a growing sense that such crimes are "worth overlooking" for the greater cause.

In the case of Germany there was something unusual which was politically and culturally very deeply wrong - German troops committed atrocities against Italian civilians and even German civilians by the end of the war (althoguh, the scale of these atrocities is much less than those committed on the eastern front, in Warsaw or in the former Yugoslavia).

The point I'm making, is simply that all societies - to a greater or lesser degree - are capable of creating these types of situations or atrocities and that it is our responsibility - each single person in each country in the world - to ensure that:
- they are remembered
- that they are never condoned or minimised
- that we create a world where they are not possible

We are all responsible - not Stalin or Hitler or 'bomber' Harris or the Joint Chiefs - not a few 'bad apples' in the lower ranks - not the fact that the other side committed atrocities first or refuses to follow the 'rules' or the brutality of war itself.

OK...but name a war where civilians did not die. In war, civilians die too. No matter how careful a military might be in their target selection and execution, civilians sometimes end up on the wrong end of a bomb or bullet.

Note also that when some enemies figure out that the other side is trying to avoid civilian casualties, they start using civilians as shields. So in that case, who is to blame when civilians die?

There is a big difference between what the Japanese did to...well, just about everyone they conquered or captured...and what a few Allied troops did to enemy soldiers on occasion. Both are wrong but to far different degrees.

The good guys are never 100% pure just as the bad guys are seldom 100% evil, but there is still a big difference between the two. When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Just a small point, but Stalin and Hitler do not equate to "bomber Harris" or the Joint Chiefs or Churchill.

I'm not going to hold straffing enemy troops against a Russian recon pilot. I won't hold bombing a radar station filled with non-combat personnel against a German Stuka pilot. I won't hold dead civilians against a bomber pilot who missed the target or didn't have a weapon with enough precision to hit only the factory. And I won't hold civilian casualties against any pilot who was doing his job and trying to end a war.

Splitter

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by Splitter

OK...but name a war where civilians did not die. In war, civilians die too. No matter how careful a military might be in their target selection and execution, civilians sometimes end up on the wrong end of a bomb or bullet.

Note also that when some enemies figure out that the other side is trying to avoid civilian casualties, they start using civilians as shields. So in that case, who is to blame when civilians die?

There is a big difference between what the Japanese did to...well, just about everyone they conquered or captured...and what a few Allied troops did to enemy soldiers on occasion. Both are wrong but to far different degrees.

The good guys are never 100% pure just as the bad guys are seldom 100% evil, but there is still a big difference between the two. When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Just a small point, but Stalin and Hitler do not equate to "bomber Harris" or the Joint Chiefs or Churchill.

I'm not going to hold straffing enemy troops against a Russian recon pilot. I won't hold bombing a radar station filled with non-combat personnel against a German Stuka pilot. I won't hold dead civilians against a bomber pilot who missed the target or didn't have a weapon with enough precision to hit only the factory. And I won't hold civilian casualties against any pilot who was doing his job and trying to end a war.

Splitter

I don't equate them - except that all have some command responsibility.

I think the point I'm getting at is that it is always tragic. It doesn't matter how or why it happens - except insofar as knowing how or why allows us to prevent it from happening again.

I'd go so far as to say all civilians and all military of all nations bear some responsibility for preventing civilian deaths and war crimes. Of course, the country committing the war crime and the individuals involved bear much more responsibility.

But, if we really want to deal with an event like the Holocaust, we have to realise that it is ot just the Einsatzgruppen, nor Hitler, nor the German people, nor the international Eugenics movement, nor the generations of anti-Semite propagandist, nor patriotist "my country right or wrong" attitudes alone which bear responsibility to face what was done (and prevent it from happening again).

If humans can behave this way to other humans, then it means all of humanity - even those not yet born - must take some of the shame and have courage to be eternally vigilant.

I don't blame the pilot, I think it is tragic that he was ever in such a position or that those people were killed. I'd extend this to a lot of other people.

[WTE_Galway]

There are no just wars and no good guys and bad guys in war. Just poor suckers killing each other because some politician decided they should.

The rational thing for the politicians to do is initially be pacifist and try at all costs to avoid a war and then if that finally fails become ruthless and meticulous and deadly.

The British did it right in WWII. Chamberlain was essential attempt at pacifism (which maybe went on a touch to long) and Churchill represented the flip side of ruthless pragmatic killing at all costs once the pacifism had failed.

In recent history George W Bush got it wrong on two counts.

First he was jumping willy nilly if not gleefully into wars for political personal and ideological reasons and far far to early with little reason or cause. No attempt to explore other options, he was too gun happy and gave the impression he was off on a deer hunt.

But even worse once he committed he was half-hearted about it, pretty much assuming the other side would somehow be awed by his impressive military strutting about and just roll over and play dead while the populace would welcome him and the troops would be home by Xmas

It's like the old street fighter adage "Do not threaten with a knife. You never pull a knife until you have no choice because once knives appear someone is going to get messed up".

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

The rational thing for the politicians to do is initially be pacifist and try at all costs to avoid a war and then if that finally fails become ruthless and meticulous and deadly.

If the French and British would have stood up to Hitler and lost a few hundred lives, millions of people would have been saved from WW2. Especially after knowing the consequences of a war against the same side 20 years earlier! Who was being rational?

You do remember the First Gulf War and how it was left unfinished? We all knew at the time back in '91 we would have to go back and finish the job at some point. The reason we went in the way we did in '03 was by the stab in the back by Turkey and the reduction of the size of our Army under Clinton.

War is hell and every side has its atrocities. The only way to win is to use all available force to break the will of the enemy. There is a huge difference between fire bombing an enemy city, shooting captured soldiers, selling iron ore to the Nazi regime, raping 12 year old girls, doing nothing while watching an ally being invaded, hiding behind neutrality to avoid a just cause, or loading people into boxcars to their deaths.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

If the French and British would have stood up to Hitler and lost a few hundred lives, millions of people would have been saved from WW2. Especially after knowing the consequences of a war against the same side 20 years earlier!

Sorry, but can you explain this statement please?
Only I was under the impression that we declared war on him, and lost a bit more than a 'few hundred lives' whilst 'standing up to Hitler' during the Norwegian Campaign, the Battle of France, subsequently in the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic, also during the bombing campaign and North Africa.
Where exactly do you see complacency in Britain's actions prior to the USA's involvement? Northern France was steamrollered into armistice and the rest of France capitulated.
How would Britain and France therefore prevent the invasion of The Soviet Union?
More importantly from the USA's perspective, how would Britain and France have prevented Pearl Harbour? Or Hitler's declaration of war on the US?
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks.

[Splitter]

Avivmimus, I agree. Nothing more to say except that the sins of the father cannot be visited upon the son. All of us that were "there" when something happened bare some responsibility, good or ill. Those not yet born...no, I can't say that.

Just an example: The German people of the time bare some responsiblity for Hitler. They let him come to power out of desperation. The rest of the world has some culpability for not stopping him before he he became too powerful. Do either of us (you or I) have any responsibility for his actions? Should a present day German feel any shame for his actions or the actions of their forefathers? I say no.

Galway, there are just wars and justified killings. I don't buy that there are no good guys and no bad guys. If your premise is correct, Churchill = Hitler. Roosevelt = Stalin. I don't buy that.

If you go to war to protect people from oppression who cannot protect themselves, is that not justified? I would say that is maybe the best reason to go to war morally. If I knowingly let my neighbor be tortured and killed by some bad guy and never go to their aid, am I not "guilty" in some respect?

If you go to war to protect your country, is that not justified? If you kill someone who seeks to do you harm, is that not justified?

Was Bush right? I seriously don't know. I would not have done what he did....I would have gotten rid of Saddam and let the Iraqis sort if out for themselves. My solution would have probably ended up in a lot of bloodshed amongst the Iraqis. But, are the Iraqis better off today than they were under Saddam? I think most of them say yes. So was the war justified? You decide.

Heck, I don't like the guy, but he might just have been a better person...had a better vision...than me. He believed in the Iraqi people, I didn't. Neither do you. Maybe in the end you and I will be proven right, but so far we are wrong. They actually do seem to be capable of voting for their leaders and defending their fledgling democracy....we'll see though. Old hatreds die hard and the factions DO hate each other.

Perhaps they are just in an artificially induced lull in their hostilities toward one another. If that is the case, when they decide to start killing one another, should we all just stand back and see who wins? Are we then culpable, through our inaction, for all of the killing? If we intervene are we then just postponing the inevitable? These are probably questions the world is going to have to eventually answer.

Since the West probably knew about the concentration camps and the mass murders, were they somehow derelict in their moral duties by not attacking Germany? Is pacifism the only moral way? Or is it sometimes more "right" to go kill people to end their evil?

You are right in that you never bring a knife to a gunfight . You either go into a fight full bore or don't go at all. Of course, if you go full bore there will be plenty of people there to criticize you for "over reacting".

So did this recon pilot somehow overreact in straffing retreating German troops? Did the pilot who landed his plane only to get out and shoot a downed German pilot because his family had been raped and killed by Germans overreact? Where the line is drawn is what is up for discussion....But I really don't think one should not be equated with the other.

Splitter