General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Mush and Eck
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: June 07, 2001 04:01AM
<HTML>No one said what Mush did was a fair fight. No one said war is about being fair. It is about winning.
War often means taking advantage of the enemy\'s weakest moments, even if that means not \'playing fair\'.
I pointed out two major differences about Mush vs Eck;
1) The Japanese troops were soldiers, on their way to battle, and continued to offer resistance while in the water. If you want to be treated as a noncombatant, you better act like one. The allied seamen killed by Eck had no military value other than their knowledge that Eck had been there. They were unarmed and offered no resistance from their lifeboats.
I suppose modern folks would have less angst if Mush had let the several thousand enemy troops make it to shore. But they would have died in battle - along with many hundreds, maybe thousands, of US soldiers. Mush would not have been doing his duty if he allowed that to happen.
2) The temper of the Pacific war, as a historical matter, was much harsher - because the IJN and IJA violated virtually every code of war; the allies felt no moral compulsion to observe any in return. (nor did the Japanese troops expect any). What Mush did was, as a historical matter, within the bounds of war in the Pacific. I can assure you that the Japanese troops being killed would not consider Mush\'s act to be \'immoral\' - just bad luck on their part.
Eck\'s act was clearly beyond the bounds of what was \'accepted\' by both sides in the BOA - few U-boat officers would find Eck\'s acts to be normal - they were a unique aberation.
In general, in WWII the killing of uniformed combat troops was considered to be ok regardless of their relative vulnerability at the moment unless they were actually surrendering. No one spared the enemy so that they could be fought again some other day in a \'more cricket fashion\'.
however, Mush\'s act was controversial at the time within the tightknit submariner\'s world. No one directly emulated it.
The closest thing to it was the persistent plinking of small, defenceless (mostly fishing) vessels by US subs - some thought it a blow against enemy food supplies, others simply cold blooded murder. There was considerable debate around the tabletop between commanders, execs and officers of various boats while on shore leave, with various opinions. No less a luminary than Slade Cutter, after the first few such acts, stopped and swore he\'d never attack another small vessel - in direct violation of orders to \'sink everything\' - because he could not stomach the one sided massacre of helpless fishermen.
It makes for an interesting debate, though. Thanks for your thoughts..</HTML>
War often means taking advantage of the enemy\'s weakest moments, even if that means not \'playing fair\'.
I pointed out two major differences about Mush vs Eck;
1) The Japanese troops were soldiers, on their way to battle, and continued to offer resistance while in the water. If you want to be treated as a noncombatant, you better act like one. The allied seamen killed by Eck had no military value other than their knowledge that Eck had been there. They were unarmed and offered no resistance from their lifeboats.
I suppose modern folks would have less angst if Mush had let the several thousand enemy troops make it to shore. But they would have died in battle - along with many hundreds, maybe thousands, of US soldiers. Mush would not have been doing his duty if he allowed that to happen.
2) The temper of the Pacific war, as a historical matter, was much harsher - because the IJN and IJA violated virtually every code of war; the allies felt no moral compulsion to observe any in return. (nor did the Japanese troops expect any). What Mush did was, as a historical matter, within the bounds of war in the Pacific. I can assure you that the Japanese troops being killed would not consider Mush\'s act to be \'immoral\' - just bad luck on their part.
Eck\'s act was clearly beyond the bounds of what was \'accepted\' by both sides in the BOA - few U-boat officers would find Eck\'s acts to be normal - they were a unique aberation.
In general, in WWII the killing of uniformed combat troops was considered to be ok regardless of their relative vulnerability at the moment unless they were actually surrendering. No one spared the enemy so that they could be fought again some other day in a \'more cricket fashion\'.
however, Mush\'s act was controversial at the time within the tightknit submariner\'s world. No one directly emulated it.
The closest thing to it was the persistent plinking of small, defenceless (mostly fishing) vessels by US subs - some thought it a blow against enemy food supplies, others simply cold blooded murder. There was considerable debate around the tabletop between commanders, execs and officers of various boats while on shore leave, with various opinions. No less a luminary than Slade Cutter, after the first few such acts, stopped and swore he\'d never attack another small vessel - in direct violation of orders to \'sink everything\' - because he could not stomach the one sided massacre of helpless fishermen.
It makes for an interesting debate, though. Thanks for your thoughts..</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
crew of U-470 abandoned | Dave McQueen | 06/05/2001 08:12PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Brian Corijn | 06/05/2001 09:03PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Dave McQueen | 06/06/2001 07:04AM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Steve Cooper | 06/06/2001 12:27PM |
RE: USS Juneau | Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 01:03PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | becorijn@zeelandnet.nl | 06/06/2001 01:14PM |
USS Juneau | Michael Lowrey | 06/06/2001 02:41PM |
RE: USS Juneau | Michael Lowrey | 06/06/2001 03:22PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 01:11PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Steve | 06/06/2001 01:29PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave | John Griffiths | 06/06/2001 05:18PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave | Ted Agar | 06/06/2001 07:29PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned -Dave | Tom Iwanski | 06/06/2001 07:59PM |
in defense of Mush | kurt | 06/06/2001 08:55PM |
RE: in defense of Mush | Steve Cooper | 06/07/2001 01:27PM |
Mushs first wahoos third | kurt | 06/07/2001 03:21PM |
RE: in defense of Eck | Tim | 06/08/2001 01:44AM |
Eck knew he was killing survivors | kurt | 06/08/2001 05:05PM |
With all due respect John | Dave McQueen | 06/07/2001 06:44AM |
RE: With all due respect John | John Griffiths | 06/07/2001 04:10PM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Steve | 06/06/2001 12:19AM |
RE: crew of U-470 abandoned | Joe Brennan | 06/06/2001 06:00AM |
RE: other example | Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 01:06PM |
realities of war | kurt | 06/06/2001 03:41PM |
RE: realities of war | Walt | 06/06/2001 10:08PM |
RE: realities of war | Steve | 06/07/2001 10:02AM |
RE: wrong spot, defending Mush | Rainer Bruns | 06/06/2001 11:31PM |
Mush and Eck | kurt | 06/07/2001 04:01AM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Rainer Bruns | 06/07/2001 11:32AM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Walt | 06/07/2001 12:04PM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Steve Cooper | 06/07/2001 01:21PM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Walt | 06/07/2001 04:59PM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Tim | 06/08/2001 02:06AM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Rainer Bruns | 06/07/2001 03:43PM |
RE: Mush and Eck | Walt | 06/07/2001 04:57PM |
different opinions | kurt | 06/07/2001 03:56PM |
RE: different opinions | Rich Mickle | 06/07/2001 11:03PM |
RE: different opinions | Siri Lawson | 06/08/2001 03:56AM |
RE: different opinions | Rich Mickle | 06/08/2001 08:51AM |