Firing Squads

[kickingzebra]

Today I was lucky enough to see a collection of photographs of an old soldier.
These were scanned and nicely preserved.

The problem is, these were photographs of European Soldiers, Executing by 2 or three man firing squad, UNIFORMED japanese soldiers.

With lovely little footnotes about the nasty nipponese empire/soldier they were killing, and the autographs of the shooters.

Now I now damn well New Zealanders were also guilty of this, but tell me, isn't that a war crime? A crime against Humanity?

And some of these people we called heroes, they lived distinguished lives. But they would shoot an anarmed man, in their captivity, in cold blood!!

WTF??

They were very graphic, you could see the look of fear on the Japanese faces, and then the anguish on the face, as after they had been shot, they spun to the ground. Dammit, the smug whitey bastards that didn't actually shoot were sitting around with great smiles on their faces, watching and applauding. This is only 5 guys at most, but, I am just like, disgusted, and feel dirtied, that people should do that, and be proud of doing it.

Hot blood, war, killing etc, I can understand that, but cold blood for entertainment?? Far Koff!!

Whats your thoughts people?

[Sniper]

The Japanese people deserved it after the prison camps. The Law in the Geneva convention says you may not excecute a surrendering soldier. If these soldiers were POWs who committed a crime, then unfortunatly the punishment handed to them was death

[kickingzebra]

80 photos... Somehow I doubt they were all criminals. Execution for crimes, well, maybe, when rations etc are tight, but to me, it seems more criminal on the whiteys part, than anything else...

[Sniper]

Thing thing is, its horrible now adays when we are looking at the photos. No one really has too might right to comment unless they were there.

[kickingzebra]

That is a point, but to forget our own indiscretions in the past would be unforgiveable. History may yet be the only real teacher we have...

[Ixion]

Thing thing is, its horrible now adays when we are looking at the photos. No one really has too might right to comment unless they were there.

Care to extend that logic to Belsen-Belsen. Or Auschwich ?

[Ixion]

Incidentally, KZ , did you start this post in Pointless Drivel? Or did someone move it here ?. Cos its not pointless, nor drivel.

[Sniper]

The germans were a different story and it has been proved beyond doubt that the attempted extermination of the Jews was an act of very sick men.

I don't believe that the people owho executed japanese or the japs that executed the allies were wrong in doing so. Think back to those days when your best mates head had just exploded and you were covered in his brains, the last thing you would want to do is leave the culprit in a prison to be released when the war is over.

OK the war was the act of people behind desks and in bunkers, but its still sad to see that your average Joe bloggs was brought out to "fight for his country" which isn't a bad thing, but some wars should be fought on the inside.

Why is this in PD?

[kickingzebra]

I started it here for lack of a Murdering dutchmen shoot unarmed japanese soldiers in uniform thread... wasn't sure where to put that
Won't complain if you decide to move it

(to prove to all the people that think I want to kill everything that isn't white european in origin; that i do indeed have a heart...)

Sniper, your best mates head being blown off, and your reaction, is a hot blooded reaction. If you kill someone in hot blood, the charge is usually manslaughter. much lesser than murder. Murder is a cold calculated act, and an informal firing squad of two or three guys killing eighty unarmed men in Unifrom, is a war crime.

[Sniper]

A war crime is judged as such when the deasths are classed as genocide. Depends on how you look at it to see if its cold blooded murder or hot headed killing.

[kickingzebra]

I'd be curious to see what Geneva convention has to say on it, and who ratified said convention.

[Sniper]

Its been a while since I could quote the geneva conventions laws, but I also believe that those said laws are just that.... laws. I know many people who break the law and in war time emotions run high and laws fly out the window.

[kickingzebra]

I can understand, and even accept that to a point, but again, the magnitude. One or two, private ryan style. But 80?? Think of all the people you regularly associate with, if they were to all be killed, I doubt there would be 80.

Where does the line come up?

[Sniper]

True, I see what you mean. It almost like the vietnamese and the chinese. They did the same thing and its called genocide.

I think in the western world people belive that they are too oppressed hence the reason they think they get away with this. Just like the US trying Saddam Hussein, I bet if an easten country gets hold of GW Bush, he could be tried for war crimes too. (Or blatant stupidity)

Why is this in PD? Is it possible to be shifted as its a rather good thread and could use some more points of veiw.

[kickingzebra]

That is a point. I'm a Bush supporter, I would have to claim the trump card, they have declared war on terrorism in general, innocent casualties, in a guerilla warfare scenario are always going to be hard to track down. But are probably slimmer than the non combatants, aid workers, photographers etc being killed by the psychos.

If we are to hold our head up high, and proclaim we are on the side of justice, we have to be beyond reproach. Situational ethics I suppose, sure they may not have had the resources to look after those captured, but what about prisoner exchanges, work programmes, or good old fashioned brain washing? I draw the line well short of blowing em apart.

The ones that go over the line in iraq, or other conflict, when it comes out, they are usually dealt to promptly, and harshly, and publicly (except the ones we don't know about)

[SARGE]

we always called them " safety rounds"

[bugjuice]

i always have a problem with 'people' being punished, no matter what. If you ask a person why they shoot someone, they're 'told' to. What has that person done to them? The 'country' has done some horrible crime or thing, so get people from that country and kill them.. what have those people done?

I feel like countries are like corporate. You can be angry at the country, but who is it you're really angry at? no one knows, cos it's too big, so you're just angry at the country. There's too many 'few' people who make the decision, and too many 'innocents' who take the flak/bullet. There are some people who do/did deserve a bullet. Then there's too many people who don't, and still get it..
my 2¢

[kickingzebra]

Which begs the question, should war be run in such a fashion? should we go in to kick ass without running an extensive pow network? As anyone knows, I am not anti war, It just the ethics involved... Maybe we should just let the politicians into a glass room to sort it out.

George W Bush vs Helen Robobitch Clark
George W Bush vs Kim jong Il
George W Bush vs Victor whatever his name is

George Ws Tough, he'll kick ass...

[Swoop]

There seems to be a lot of information missing regarding the photos.
Was there a court case (military court marshall) where they were found guilty? or does "rule 303" apply here (aka Breaker Morant)?
Firing squads are still in use worldwide for civil court decisions.
The Russians use belt-fed machineguns.

[Ixion]

..
Firing squads are still in use worldwide for civil court decisions.
The Russians use belt-fed machineguns.

Eek. I hope not. Puts a whole new slant on bankruptcy! I presume you meancivilian criminal courts.

[kickingzebra]

The photos were in the field, not a standard setup as per military justice, in different locations, and the owner of the photos, (the son of one of the shooters) informed me that they were informal shoots....

Court martialled and shot is another story again, what of all those shot, because of shell shock? dazed and confused, they wander the battlefield, if not picked off by the enemy, they were shot by their own side for leaving their duties/deserting.

Ouch. Good reason to wear ear plugs that one... Not that they'll do much if a 105 lands anywhere within coo ee

[Lou Girardin]

Read a bit about WW2 in the Pacific/Southeast Asia, then you'll realise why they did this.
Though I see that Clive Hulme VC is currently being criticised for dressing in German uniform when he won his VC. That's an offence that usually ends before a firing squad if the other side catches you.

[The Stranger]

Are you not missing too much information really to make informed comment?

Do you know that these people were not tried legitimately?

[Patrick]

The winners of a war usually write the histroy books...and buries those dirty deeds... Plenty of old timers at any RSA wouldn't be too concerned after what was done to them in POW camps etc...and they were there and in the know.

Unlike this one...lacking info really...

[Ixion]

If it was an official firing squad there would have been an officer in attendance. And probably a chaplain (though in the field the latter might not be possible) But certainly an officer.

But, in war, shit happens.

[Sniper]

Its a pity people pass judgement on others for the actions in the past done not by them. Pity the japanese had to die, but imagine how up in arms we would all be if it was our soldiers

[Lias]

Given the way the Japanese treated their prisoners in general, and especially those on the death reailway its hardly surprising that some allied soldiers took the law into their own hands. Doesnt make it right, but its hardly surprising.

The victors always write history, and the axis lost.

Both sides commited atrocities, but because the allies won their crimes are generally overlooked.
Hell look at the actions of General Curtis LeMay and his firebombing attacks on Japan. He publically stated that if the allies had lost the war he would expect to have been tried for war crimes. But they won and he was a hero.

[ManDownUnder]

All other issues aside - the problem I have it that people were enjoying the death of another.

If you enjoy killing you need to take a good look atyourself. Unfortunately war (which I have never experienced I hasten to add) seems to reduce the act of killing to a simple thing, of minimal consequence where it isn't and never should be.

The use of words is interesting in wartime "gooks", "spiks", "wogs" "wops" etc all serve to reduce the identity of those wearing the label. It's the us and them syndrome. We are right - they are wrong.

We are normal, they are not etc.

They may have all been tried and found guilty, I'm also not qualified to pronounce the suitability (or otherwise) of the sentence handed down, but to use their misery and pain as the source of entertainment is just plain wrong.

Take a look at those photos and learn from them. I'm glad you feel disgusted and dirtied - your standards are higher than those you see in the photo. That doesn't make the men in the photos wrong - necessarily, but mislead. Altered perception is a wonderful thing, incredibly powerful and not to be dismissed.

[MSTRS]

How do you know it wasn't a case of an officer saying "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" ?? War is/was not a pleasant thing and the war in the Pacific was right at the top for unpleasant things.
Personally I think the Japanese started it and deserved whatever they got. And THEY hadn't signed the Geneva Convention. Or abided by it's tenets.

[kickingzebra]

There is a point, if Japan weren't signatories... However, again I add, the individual responsibility to be above board.
I have satisfied myself, by asking the guy who's father is the shooter what the story was. They were guys they captured in the field. Held them long enough to secure the area, etc, then shoot them one by one.

Cream with your scones anyone who does not find that reprehensible?

I can understand the mentality, and have read plenty of WW2 history, pacific included. The japanese certainly weren't the nicest of captors, nor at that time the nicest of people collectively.

Because they were dispicable, and inhumane to our people, does that mean it is right to do the same back?

If your child gets a sharp stick, and stabs my child in the eye. Is it right for me, to come to your house, after my child has been patched up, get out my sharp stick, and poke it in your childs eye?

The Defender in this case (Japan the aggressor) if on the side of justice and right, has the obligation to be beyond reproach.

[The Stranger]

There is a point, if Japan weren't signatories... However, again I add, the individual responsibility to be above board.
I have satisfied myself, by asking the guy who's father is the shooter what the story was. They were guys they captured in the field. Held them long enough to secure the area, etc, then shoot them one by one.

Cream with your scones anyone who does not find that reprehensible?

I can understand the mentality, and have read plenty of WW2 history, pacific included. The japanese certainly weren't the nicest of captors, nor at that time the nicest of people collectively.

Because they were dispicable, and inhumane to our people, does that mean it is right to do the same back?

If your child gets a sharp stick, and stabs my child in the eye. Is it right for me, to come to your house, after my child has been patched up, get out my sharp stick, and poke it in your childs eye?

The Defender in this case (Japan the aggressor) if on the side of justice and right, has the obligation to be beyond reproach.

Was his son present?
Is the father alive to verify?

Yes it does give them the right to do it back.
A tyrant may take a thousand lives, so he gets shot by a firing squad and someone complains about his treatment.
Personally I would rather die by firing squad than some of the methods used by the japs, quite humane really.

These people were not children. Kids may not know right from wrong.

Who says the defender must be beyond reproach?

[Swoop]

Personally I think the Japanese started it and deserved whatever they got. And THEY hadn't signed the Geneva Convention. Or abided by it's tenets.
Neither had the USA at that time. I do not know if they have signed it now.

[kickingzebra]

Fathers dead, but the son heard the stories all his life... I have no reason to disbelieve. Tell me, if you were running a military firing squad, would you let the other guys in the unit lie down at the feet of the shooters?

Also I believe procedure would have called not only for the officer present, and chaplain, but a set number of shooters. This varied in the photographs. Standard exectution isn't done 3 feet away from the victim, there is normally a bit of a walk etc etc.

So then, to the roads, you, being an adult, accidentally cut someone off. Should they then cut you off to even the score, remembering, pulling in from lane splitting, or tight passing, most cagers would consider being cut off.

Death isn't always the object of war, defeat is. Not always best accomplished by sheer kills either.

Imagine again, being drafted into fight you don't give a shit about
(on that note, anyone know the reason the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour?) having a rifle thrust into your hands, a bag of rice, you've been torn away from your family etc, and you are dropped on a pacific island, told to kill anything white.

Kill or be killed, combat occurs that is war, but then, when you cock up, and someone points a gun at you, you stick your hands in the air, surrender, thankful to not have to kill anymore, you are tied up, bundled to the ground, fighting continues for a little while. You realise all those that didn't surrender with you are dead. Captors come back, light a cigarette, have a spot of tea. Stand together in a group, pull you to your feet. Arrange themselves around you, for a laugh. Then the Guns are lifted, pointed at you. You are shot, Dead, because Japanese are inhumane?
The same Japanese that make 90% of our bikes and cars?

Gaurantee that scenario replayed itself thousands of times during the war. And probably the one on Private Ryan, where some psycho little weed is caught, you feel sorry for him, let him go, and again, in the most inhuman way, he comes back and kills members of your platoon.

That death is justified, and likely wouldn't happen in cold blood.

[Ixion]

..(on that note, anyone know the reason the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour?)


Oil .

[Sniper]

Oil .

Cause they felt like it at the time, as well as it would have been a good step to knock out some of Americas best fleet for when they joined the war, unfortunatly, it just pissed the americans off so they went and dropped atomic bombs to prove they are better

[kickingzebra]

Keep trying... If it was nothing to do with commodities, or the economy, would you be even more surprised?

[Ixion]

No, it really was oil. Dutch East Indies oil to be specific. Japan needed it, the Yanks wouldn't let them go for it. Japan didn't really want to fight the USA, just annex DEI. But the Yanks wouldn't stay on the sidelines, so Japan decided to get in first. Then couldn't get out.

Irony is , Netherlands lost DEI anyway,they would have been better to sell to Japan . Then no Pacific War (maybe, the Yanks might have tried to stop a sale, or attacked Japan anyway, they were itching for a fight over China)

[Lou Girardin]

And probably the one on Private Ryan, where some psycho little weed is caught, you feel sorry for him, let him go, and again, in the most inhuman way, he comes back and kills members of your platoon.


Really? As far as I saw he was a crewman on an MG42 doing his job. He surrendered and was entitled to be dealt with as a POW.

[kickingzebra]

I hadn't heard that, but it does make sense, however My sources tell me a slightly different story, which I have to now tell to prove myself an idiot...
As we may or may not have observed, Japanese are a strange people. Rigid culture etc, In stark contrast to the Americans, loose, easy going, rude and brash?
1 percieved slight, when in the early to mid1800s, Japan had been a self sustaining society for many years, USA trade ambassador came over, and wouldn't take "no, we want to remain closed to external trade" for an answer.
Said,or did something rash.

Japan waits... Oil may well have been fat on the fire, because the anti american sentiment was very strong, and had been for more than 100 years.

A cultural slight from days long past avenged...

Thats the story as I heard it... I won't stake my life on it though.

Anyways, they came up with the GSXR, and therefore must be bloody good blokes!! Dunno about those "other" brands though....

[Nitzer]

No, it really was oil. Dutch East Indies oil to be specific. Japan needed it, the Yanks wouldn't let them go for it. Japan didn't really want to fight the USA, just annex DEI. But the Yanks wouldn't stay on the sidelines, so Japan decided to get in first. Then couldn't get out.

Irony is , Netherlands lost DEI anyway,they would have been better to sell to Japan . Then no Pacific War (maybe, the Yanks might have tried to stop a sale, or attacked Japan anyway, they were itching for a fight over China)

It's always about the oil isn't it

I know this has gone a bit :Offtopic: but it's a good thread.

That's an interesting point you've highlighted there Ixion, not one I've heard before.

I'm not sure if the oil would have made much difference though, I think America and Japan would probably have come to blows anyway. History suggests that when you have several nations building up their military might (Germany, Japan, USA, Briatain) war is inevitably going to happen as they vie for top spot in the world

[kickingzebra]

Really? As far as I saw he was a crewman on an MG42 doing his job. He surrendered and was entitled to be dealt with as a POW.

He himself was a cold blooded killer, but doing his duty. I suppose it was sickening that he obviously enjoyed this, but then again, he was killed in hot blood... After they had recaptured him...

War ethics is not the easy topic I had imagined...

Does anyone actually have experience on what the military teach about this??

[Lou Girardin]

I don't know about the cold blooded killer bit. Around 50% of GI's in WW2 didn't fire their weapons in battle. One reason why the Yanks tried different training methods including video games now.
Dehumanise the enemy and they'll kill them. But then all gooks, slopes, ragheads, sand niggers all look the same really, so you may as well kill 'em all.

[Sniper]

You forgot camel jockey Lou.

[u4ea]

just reading thru and my thoughts are today the yanks are taking a life of a suspected suicide bomber,was it not the japs who had the kamikazi bombers?these type of soldiers dont play fair .they should be eradicated allbeit thru due processes........

[MSTRS]

....was it not the japs who had the kamikazi bombers?.........
Divine Wind - yes.....anyone know why they wore helmets??

[enigma51]

I know what you saying I even understand why you are disgusted! But lets not forget something you are talking about war these people are being trained to hate the enemy with a hate so great they are willing to kill each other. Now the first time you are in combat in somebody shooting at you guess what you shoot back they shoot back and they kill your mates and you theres Do you know what happens then; you get fucked off with them and you kill them and it snow balls until you have absolutely no feelings other than hate towards the “enemy”.

From your comments I take it you neither you old man nor you have seen combat or been in that situation and I am realy happy for you cause its something you don’t want to experience!

That’s why there is a saying that goes in war there are no winners!

[The Stranger]

As we may or may not have observed, Japanese are a strange people. Rigid culture etc, In stark contrast to the Americans, loose, easy going, rude and brash?
1 percieved slight, when in the early to mid1800s, Japan had been a self sustaining society for many years, USA trade ambassador came over, and wouldn't take "no, we want to remain closed to external trade" for an answer.
Said,or did something rash.


I was always taught it was oil.

I was told that the US was blocking Japan's access to oil to try and put pressure on the Japs to get out of China.

What do you mean "a self sustaining society" please?

[u4ea]

Divine Wind - yes.....anyone know why they wore helmets??
maybe so no one would recognise them.................................duhno

[Macktheknife]

Im sorry to any who may be offended by this BUT...
having been in a few tight spots myself (not war I grant you) I can say from 1st hand experience, if someone is shooting at me and my mates then that person is going to die and I dont care how that happens. No amount of logic after the fact will explain or help anyone to understand who hasnt been in a similar situation, exactly what it feels like to have someone shooting at you. You get scared and you get MAD, then if you're lucky you get a chance to get even!
At that point you dont give a rats ass about rules or any other thing except getting a chance to give some back.
There is no value in my opinion in trying to re-evaluate the actions of men in 'war response mode' without knowing all the facts, which we do not. However, please consider the effect of being shot at for weeks and months on end, seeing your mates die and be maimed all around you for what feels like an eternity and knowing that the people who did this are just over there.... then you get hold of them, could you really expect anything else?
Frankly Im surprised they didnt do more of it!
Dehumanising the enemy is only a preparation for battle, after someone starts shooting at you it becomes personal really fast, ask anyone who has been there.
rant over 2c done.

[MSTRS]

Well said Mac.....no such thing as Queensbury Rules in war.

[The Stranger]

So then, to the roads, you, being an adult, accidentally cut someone off. Should they then cut you off to even the score, remembering, pulling in from lane splitting, or tight passing, most cagers would consider being cut off.
.

Um there is no comparison.

We are talking death here.
Think your mates, your wife, your kids.
Yes many a woman and child died too.

And one is an accident, a mistake if you like, we are all humans, we all make them.
The other was often cold blooded murder.

Under such circumstances I have no problem with a life for a life.

[Ixion]

'Twas not actually the ambassador (Japn refused to accept one). 'Twas a US naval officer , Commodore Perry. Turned up with a flotilla of ships with big bang-bangs, demanded that Japan sign a trade treaty or "bang bang go all your cities". Japan had no choice but to submit. The insult and loss of face rankled, and Japan embarked on a massive industrialisation campaign (accompanied by much internal revolution).

By the 1930's Japan was engaged in a major war in China, primarily to secure natural resources . Japan has very little in the way of natural resources, no ccoal oil iron copper etc worth speaking of.

The USA very much disapproved of the Sino-Japanese war (or, rather, of Japan), and there was much angst about atrocities, but did not more than complain, and allow US citizens to fight on an individual basis (The Flying tigers).

Then the US moved to stop exports of scrap steel to Japan (new steel had already been stopped). And threatened to embargo oil imports,.

Japan desparately needed oil . If oil imports were embargoed the Empire *had* to obtain it near to home - the only place was the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia , nowadays).

But Japanese attmepts to buy the islands from the Netherlands were unsuccessful.

That meant , to Japanese minds, an inevitable war (probably was inevitable - Japna had few other choices). And if it meant humbling the hated Yanks, well, so much the better.

They hoped to score a decisive blow to the US navy, grab the DEI before the US could respond (it's a long way for a fleet from the US to DEI), and then negotiate to beat all hell - agree to anything but we keep the DEI.

Went wrong when they missed the carrier fleet (sheer bad luck that) , and misread US response - they'd been relying on a continuation of the isolationist attitude that so far had kept the US out of the war with Germany. And got bogged down in a land war with the Brits in Burma, instead of rolling on into India as originally predicted.

[Lias]

Japan waits... Oil may well have been fat on the fire, because the anti american sentiment was very strong, and had been for more than 100 years.

Anti-American sentiment was very strong in Japan, and with good cause. Prior to the start of WW2, the Americans had bullying Japan for nearly 100 years. The first Americans military vessels arrived in Japan in 1853 and forced Japanese to begin trade with American merchants with threat of military action. I mean thats got to taint the relationship right from the start. The western powers also forced japan to force some fairly unfair treaties as well (1858 Unequal Treaties, 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, 1930 London Naval Tready) which generated untold amounts of anti-american and anti-western sentiment in Japan. Japan's PM was assasinated by some young officers for his support of the LNT for gods sake. The Americans kept up diplomatic and economic pressure during he 1930's over Japans Imperial ambitions and its ongoing clashes with the chinese and soviets. This was in large part fueled by American racism towards the japanese, and a refusal to trust asians. Japan lost the war, and as we all know the victor rewrites history, and even then with the US spin its still generally accepted that the main cause of Japan's attack onPearl harbour was American economic pressure, the Japanese leadership felt (rightly) that they really had no other option but to go to war or face ruin.

[kickingzebra]

Thanks guys for writing that history up...
Enigma, and Mac, that is a slightly different perspective, which I must appreciate, I'm no stranger to shooting things, but people, not really something I can honestly put in my CV, niether can my father, but grandparents and uncles yes. I suppose the difference is they didn't talk much about their time at war, and if anything were either shamed, or still traumatised by it. So maybe that is the reaction I have come to expect.

What are the armed forces taught?? I remember the huha, and internet videos of the marine who shot guys who were down in Iraq... So obviously they are taught to not shoot them when they are nuetralised... But how, what are the Rules?

Ideology has to come into it, where is the higher value, Human Life, or gaining the objective of victory. Remember the film of Lawrence of Arabia,
When he popped his head up, holding the blood stained knife after killing the German prisoners...

To take personal revenge for general crimes... would surely feed a bloodlust, not unlike a sheepdog, you may feed it on lamb for years (probably won't, but just for arguments sake) but as soon as it tries to get a piece of that for itself, no second thoughts, that dog is dead. isn't there a danger of this happening with soldiers who would do those things?

How does one go from being a merciless killer in a warzone, to being a good parent, and loving husband at home?

[Winston001]

I remember meeting a retired American in Mexico years ago. He'd been a soldier in France. At first he said they treated the Germans with sympathy and gave them a chance to surrender. Then one day his unit came across the body of an American soldier who'd been cruicified with barbed wire.

They didn't bother with prisoners after that.

[kickingzebra]

Not to be patronising, but the image of someone crucified with barbed wire, how would that work?? Crucifixion normally requiring a frame for a person to be nailed to? Unless the tied him onto said frame/cross/tree/whatever with barbed wire?!?

[Timber020]

I talked to an old lady whose husband during the depression was paid to cut up old ships for the scrap to be sent to Japan. He was paid by the pound he cut. Later he fought in the pasific where "They gave that steel back to him, every single pound."

Sometimes you cant keep prisoners. They cost you supplies, mobility, man power, security and generally can be a great threat to what you doing. Killing prisoners isnt unusual by any means. You look after your team first, and if prisoners are a great threat, then you do what you have to.

I know guys who have been through wars, one fought germans from 1940 until VE day and then fought the japanese until 1947! (mopping up squads that wouldnt surrender). He still holds alot of hatred towards the german as they killed his family. His unit never kept a single german prisoner in 4 years of fighting, and none of them ever took leave. He was wounded at least 5 times and After the war he moved to NZ and was a wonderful father. (he would be awesome to write a book on)
I know guys that fought in Korea, Vietnam and Rhodesia and know that there were times when they couldnt afford to keep prisoners, so they didnt.
Pretty much 2 generations of NZ men saw combat in the 2 big ones. Most coped pretty well, and were normal men once back at home.

Would I shoot prisoners? By oath I would.

[SARGE]

i cant cotton to shooting a POW in cold blood.. after he has surrendered ( IF he is wearing a uniform in accordance to the Geneva Conventions)..


however.. if my knife happens to slip out of its scabbard and is recovered by said POW.. or if he is trying to make a run for it...all bets are off


as far as the Marine in Fajulla.......



Here is your situation . You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down.... So you run over there, and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead.... You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kind of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fireteam's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do?

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what.

What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experiences gained on a minute by minute basis.
Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. RIGHT NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy

[Sniper]

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what.


I second that.

Also, just on a side note, looking back at what happened 50+ years ago, we can't judge anyone for their actions. At that point in time it was the right thing to do, and I suppose admitting this on a public forum will earn some harsh comments ect, but I think I would have done the same.

If you saw combat in WW2 and came through, you no doubt saw at least 3 of your friends die, thats enough to change any mans outlook on life.

[Finn]

It's very easy for civilians of today to look back in disgust at what went on. Just remember, these guys were drafted. They had no choice but to fight an old mans war.

If you've ever been in a "war" you'd understand that compassion, empathy and respect for fellow human beings (on the other side) dissappears pretty quickly. A "brother" who you went through training with and then onto several operations is taken hostage and you find his body 3 days later 1 metre in the air, suspended by a pole up his arse. He is missing his eyes, finger nails, dick, toes and is purple from the beatings. As luck would have it, you find his captors. Do you:

a) Share a hot cup of tea, some biscuits and chat about the weather

b) Take them hostage and call the police

c) Take them out

[Paul in NZ]

I second that.

Also, just on a side note, looking back at what happened 50+ years ago, we can't judge anyone for their actions. At that point in time it was the right thing to do, and I suppose admitting this on a public forum will earn some harsh comments ect, but I think I would have done the same.

If you saw combat in WW2 and came through, you no doubt saw at least 3 of your friends die, thats enough to change any mans outlook on life.

Probably true! Particularly in NZ!

I think it's great to have rules of combat to at least try and keep people in check but I still think it's a bit of a laugh going on about the Japs and the Nazis when some of the people on the winning side were every bit as bad!

The Russians vs the Germans - Holy crap! 21,000,000 died! Not all from combat either!

The Partisans? Feck! Some vets I know reckon that anything the SS could dream of paled besides Titos Partisans revenge...

So I try not to judge and desperately try to avoid these conflicts. They add very little to the human condition.

[Sniper]

The Russians vs the Germans - Holy crap! 21,000,000 died! Not all from combat either!


And half the russian deaths were attributed to officers killing their soldiers when they refused to fight or retreated.

[Oscar]

Today I was lucky enough to see a collection of photographs of an old soldier.
These were scanned and nicely preserved.

The problem is, these were photographs of European Soldiers, Executing by 2 or three man firing squad, UNIFORMED japanese soldiers.

With lovely little footnotes about the nasty nipponese empire/soldier they were killing, and the autographs of the shooters.

Now I now damn well New Zealanders were also guilty of this, but tell me, isn't that a war crime? A crime against Humanity?

And some of these people we called heroes, they lived distinguished lives. But they would shoot an anarmed man, in their captivity, in cold blood!!

WTF??

They were very graphic, you could see the look of fear on the Japanese faces, and then the anguish on the face, as after they had been shot, they spun to the ground. Dammit, the smug whitey bastards that didn't actually shoot were sitting around with great smiles on their faces, watching and applauding. This is only 5 guys at most, but, I am just like, disgusted, and feel dirtied, that people should do that, and be proud of doing it.

Hot blood, war, killing etc, I can understand that, but cold blood for entertainment?? Far Koff!!

Whats your thoughts people?

Many Japanese were executed for war crimes after the war, usually after a fair trial. I think you'll find that's you're looking at...