General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
different opinions
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: June 07, 2001 03:56PM
<HTML>Rainer;
thanks for your thoughts.
\"A surviving Peleus crew could contribute to the war effort just as well in their specialty as Japanese Soldiers to theirs.\"
True. Both contributed to the war effort. But the Japanese troops were uniformed combat troops. The Peleus crew were civilians. By your logic, Hitler\'s order to kill all merchant mariners was a - ok.
Civilians are not soldiers. Soldiers are legitimate targets. Anytime, anywhere. Civilians are not legitmate targets unless you have too shoot at them to get at some other target (a merchantmen, or a weapons factory) or they are shooting back. There is a world of difference in my mind. We will have to agree to disagree on this.
\"MM decision to subdue resistance is defensible, subsequent whole sale slaughter is not!\"
Again, there is no rule of warfare that killing enemy soldiers is only justified when it is a hard, even fight, and immoral when it is one sided. At no point did the troops in question try to surrender or cease firing. They wanted to go down fighting, so Mush gave them their wish. Is strafing wrong when ground troops have no AA weapons? The use of tanks wrong if the enemy has no AT weapons? Maybe it is immoral to torpedo a merchantman (or troopship) with no escorts around? No, war is about pushing your advantage. While examples in sub warfare are few, there are many, many examples of one sided bloodletting in warfare.
While the soldiers facing Mush were at the moment near helpless, they would probably be rescued and serve in combat in the near future. In similar conditions in the Battle for Guadacanal, the victims of transport sinkings were methodically machine gunned in the water (by US aircraft) because they were swimmimg ashore - those that made it to shore would reinforce the Japanese troops there in a battle whose outcome was very much in doubt. Every IJA soldier that made it ashore could kill another US soldier.
I guess I don\'t see why it is immoral to kill a soldier who is momentarily helpless, but ok wait till he is re-armed and then to bomb, shell, and shoot him to death later at great risk.
I have no problem with Mush\'s actions, but I admit to not being \'mainstream\' in my opinions. Even in the sub service in WWII his actions were at the fringe, and, in fact, were a unique instance for that service.
</HTML>
thanks for your thoughts.
\"A surviving Peleus crew could contribute to the war effort just as well in their specialty as Japanese Soldiers to theirs.\"
True. Both contributed to the war effort. But the Japanese troops were uniformed combat troops. The Peleus crew were civilians. By your logic, Hitler\'s order to kill all merchant mariners was a - ok.
Civilians are not soldiers. Soldiers are legitimate targets. Anytime, anywhere. Civilians are not legitmate targets unless you have too shoot at them to get at some other target (a merchantmen, or a weapons factory) or they are shooting back. There is a world of difference in my mind. We will have to agree to disagree on this.
\"MM decision to subdue resistance is defensible, subsequent whole sale slaughter is not!\"
Again, there is no rule of warfare that killing enemy soldiers is only justified when it is a hard, even fight, and immoral when it is one sided. At no point did the troops in question try to surrender or cease firing. They wanted to go down fighting, so Mush gave them their wish. Is strafing wrong when ground troops have no AA weapons? The use of tanks wrong if the enemy has no AT weapons? Maybe it is immoral to torpedo a merchantman (or troopship) with no escorts around? No, war is about pushing your advantage. While examples in sub warfare are few, there are many, many examples of one sided bloodletting in warfare.
While the soldiers facing Mush were at the moment near helpless, they would probably be rescued and serve in combat in the near future. In similar conditions in the Battle for Guadacanal, the victims of transport sinkings were methodically machine gunned in the water (by US aircraft) because they were swimmimg ashore - those that made it to shore would reinforce the Japanese troops there in a battle whose outcome was very much in doubt. Every IJA soldier that made it ashore could kill another US soldier.
I guess I don\'t see why it is immoral to kill a soldier who is momentarily helpless, but ok wait till he is re-armed and then to bomb, shell, and shoot him to death later at great risk.
I have no problem with Mush\'s actions, but I admit to not being \'mainstream\' in my opinions. Even in the sub service in WWII his actions were at the fringe, and, in fact, were a unique instance for that service.
</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 |