Laconia incident

[Big Phil]

So in the end it comes down to what action is more beneficial - the sinking of a sub or the value of the live of the shipwrecked survivors?

You could literally make this argument about every single sinking ever committed by a submarine (that rescuing survivors outweighs sinking the sub), and yet you're not. You're only making the argument in this specific case, which is logically inconsistent.

In any case, my answer is the same regardless of the situation. Sinking the submarine is more valuable than rescuing survivors, because it prevents the submarine from creating any more survivors.

[Thanas]

So in the end it comes down to what action is more beneficial - the sinking of a sub or the value of the live of the shipwrecked survivors?

You could literally make this argument about every single sinking ever committed by a submarine (that rescuing survivors outweighs sinking the sub), and yet you're not. You're only making the argument in this specific case, which is logically inconsistent.

No, because there are specific circumstances in this incident. Also, you are ignoring the differences in scale here - we are talking of thousands of survivors, whereas in most sinkings you have several dozens, at most. So the scale and the specific circumstances matter here.

Note that this is hardly an unknown argument as well - early on in the war, some British and German submarines decided not to fire on passenger ships due for the potential of them creating a huge number of innocent victims. I am of the opinion that the skippers of those boats were right.

In any case, my answer is the same regardless of the situation. Sinking the submarine is more valuable than rescuing survivors, because it prevents the submarine from creating any more survivors.

Yes, it is a fair argument, a cold one. Nevertheless, here we disagree in this specific instances as for me the value of noncombatants is higher than killing off a sub. Especially seeing as how the sub in question would most likely have to sink about twenty-fourty ships more to create the same number of shipwrecked people, something that was just impossible in 1942.

[fgalkin]

Thanas, the survivors were Italian PoWs. This was not a humanitarian mission, this was a mission to repatriate Axis soldiers to an Axis-allied country. Just because they were also helping a small number of Allied civillians in the process does not change that.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Big Phil]

So in the end it comes down to what action is more beneficial - the sinking of a sub or the value of the live of the shipwrecked survivors?

You could literally make this argument about every single sinking ever committed by a submarine (that rescuing survivors outweighs sinking the sub), and yet you're not. You're only making the argument in this specific case, which is logically inconsistent.

No, because there are specific circumstances in this incident. Also, you are ignoring the differences in scale here - we are talking of thousands of survivors, whereas in most sinkings you have several dozens, at most. So the scale and the specific circumstances matter here.

Note that this is hardly an unknown argument as well - early on in the war, some British and German submarines decided not to fire on passenger ships due for the potential of them creating a huge number of innocent victims. I am of the opinion that the skippers of those boats were right.

What if a U-Boat had come across the Queen Elizabeth ferrying an entire division across the Atlantic. That would almost certainly have resulted in thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of casualties. From soldiers who were not currently doing anything aggressive, but who in the future might be able to kill Germans. What's the difference?

In any case, my answer is the same regardless of the situation. Sinking the submarine is more valuable than rescuing survivors, because it prevents the submarine from creating any more survivors.

Yes, it is a fair argument, a cold one. Nevertheless, here we disagree in this specific instances as for me the value of noncombatants is higher than killing off a sub. Especially seeing as how the sub in question would most likely have to sink about twenty-fourty ships more to create the same number of shipwrecked people, something that was just impossible in 1942.

In warfare the goal is to defeat your opponent by either killing him or lowering his morale until he gives up the fight. The goal is not to stage humanitarian missions or claim the moral high ground.

Look, we can go around this in endless circles... if the U-Boat hadn't torpedoed the ship there wouldn't be survivors to rescue, if the ship had been flagged a POW ship it might not have been torpedoed, if the Germans hadn't been such a bunch of racist pricks, Hitler and the Nazis would never have taken over, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure there's even a "right" answer to this question; as Stuart said, if you don't want to put people into these sorts of shitty conundrums, don't start wars in the first place.

[Zinegata]

Second, not one of the British cruisers indicated by any means that they were not still in combat. On the contrary, both tried to ram the sub and fired at it as well.

Uh, that's not correct. After Aboukir was torpedoed (the Captain believing she had hit a mine), both Cressy and Hogue had stopped to lower boats to rescue survivors from Aboukir. Hogue was then torpedoed in the process of rescuing survivors.

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/cressy.htm

It was only after realizing that a submarine was still in their midst and actively shooting at them did both ships stop the rescue and engage once again in combat.

So if we are to apply the "no attacking of ships conducting rescue operations", Weddigen should not have torpedoed Hogue (2nd ship hit) at all, which then provoked Cressy (3rd ship hit) to drop the rescue operation and engage in combat.

In reality, Weddigen actually even maneuvered his submarine so he can get a better shot at the Hogue, which was using the crippled Aboukir as a shield while she conducted rescue operations (and Hogue could not have fired on the U-9 nor rammed her while Aboukir was between them). So it's pretty clear that Weddigen was out to bag all three cruisers regardless of humanitarian concerns, which he was well aware of. He'd have to be pretty deranged to think Cressy and Hogue were stopping to present themselves as targets for his benefit.

Even considering he had the legal right to attack, I think he should not have done so out of a moral duty.

The problem, as in all wars, is that the line is drawn at legality, not "moral duty". Because otherwise every soldier would simply cite their moral duty to "not kill fellow human beings" and there would be no war in the first place. Your own defense of Weddigen in fact hinges a lot on the legality of the matter, not its morality.

As bad as it may sound, soldiers are trained to follow what is legal, not necessarily what is moral. Because if you start injecting morality into the picture you start putting the very existence of soldiers into question.

[TheHammer]

I've always been kind of struck as to the thought that morally it is ok to kill enemy soldiers, but not to kill civilian citizens of an enemy nation. After all, especially in cases of a draft, many of those soldiers were in fact civilians who did not choose to become soldiers. You put on a uniform and are considered fair game. No longer an "innocent victim" but a "casuality of war".

If you are "At War" with a nation, I'm of the opinion that all the assets of that nation which could be used to inflict damage upon yourself are fair targets. Whether its the factory worker who builds the bombs, or the pilot who drops them. The Sailor who transports war material or the skipper of a battleship. To overly moralize about the death of one over another is kind of ridiculous in that regard. War is hell, and that's the way it is. Now, there are grey areas - when you are fighting in a country where you are trying to help the people - Iraq, Afghanistan, then the deaths of truly neutral third party civilians is something entirely different.

But in this case, if the Sub wasn't surrendering then it was still a legitimate target.

[Metahive]

If you are "At War" with a nation, I'm of the opinion that all the assets of that nation which could be used to inflict damage upon yourself are fair targets. Whether its the factory worker who builds the bombs, or the pilot who drops them. The Sailor who transports war material or the skipper of a battleship.

...or the children that might grow up one day grow and become hostile soldiers. I'd like to remind you that the Nazis got punished hard for taking the attitude you just proposed to its logical conclusion and applying it liberally. Someone who views things purely from a perspective of military necessesity can find reasons to massacre about anyone in a hostile nation.

[TheHammer]

If you are "At War" with a nation, I'm of the opinion that all the assets of that nation which could be used to inflict damage upon yourself are fair targets. Whether its the factory worker who builds the bombs, or the pilot who drops them. The Sailor who transports war material or the skipper of a battleship.

...or the children that might grow up one day grow and become hostile soldiers. I'd like to remind you that the Nazis got punished hard for taking the attitude you just proposed to its logical conclusion and applying it liberally. Someone who views things purely from a perspective of military necessesity can find reasons to massacre about anyone in a hostile nation.

What it comes down to is that war itself is an atrocity. The over moralizing about "civilian casualties" as opposed to "military casualities" when they are all people is ridiculous to me. Putting on a uniform doesn't make anyone less of a person, and thus more legitimate target for death than a civilian who helps his governments war effort by making the ammunition for that person in uniform.

[K. A. Pital]

If you are "At War" with a nation, I'm of the opinion that all the assets of that nation which could be used to inflict damage upon yourself are fair targets. Whether its the factory worker who builds the bombs, or the pilot who drops them. The Sailor who transports war material or the skipper of a battleship.

...or the children that might grow up one day grow and become hostile soldiers. I'd like to remind you that the Nazis got punished hard for taking the attitude you just proposed to its logical conclusion and applying it liberally. Someone who views things purely from a perspective of military necessesity can find reasons to massacre about anyone in a hostile nation.

What it comes down to is that war itself is an atrocity. The over moralizing about "civilian casualties" as opposed to "military casualities" when they are all people is ridiculous to me. Putting on a uniform doesn't make anyone less of a person, and thus more legitimate target for death than a civilian who helps his governments war effort by making the ammunition for that person in uniform.

Actually, it does. A soldier signs up, either voluntary or according to the draft law, to serve in conflicts and is thus expected of to die, to kill and be killed. A civilian did not sign a contract, neither of draft-like or voluntary nature, with his government, that would require him to be killed, to kill and wage war.

A soldier is trained to wield weapons and kill. A civilian is not. The expectations and liabilities of a solider and a civilian are different.

This is why killing soldiers is legitimate, but killing civilians is not.

[Darksider]

This is why killing soldiers is legitimate, but killing civilians is not.

This isn't a moral question per se, more of a legalistic one, but what exactly was the rationale used to justify the use of strategic bombers against arms factories and other industrial targets? IIRC all nations involved in the war bombed industrial targets pretty heavily, though the Axis usually took things a bit farther, particularly the Nazis during the Russian campaign.

It just seems like hair-splitting is all. Deliberately killing civilians is wrong, but bombing a tank factory is a-ok? Sure the tank factory contributes to the enemy's war-making potential, but that probably doesn't matter much to the workers who get blown to shit.

[K. A. Pital]

This isn't a moral question per se, more of a legalistic one, but what exactly was the rationale used to justify the use of strategic bombers against arms factories and other industrial targets? IIRC all nations involved in the war bombed industrial targets pretty heavily, though the Axis usually took things a bit farther, particularly the Nazis during the Russian campaign.

The factory is a target; the people working on it are collateral deaths. Collateral deaths were accepted in laws of war as not being a crime because it is hard to destroy necessary objects without killing a single civilian more often than not.

It just seems like hair-splitting is all. Deliberately killing civilians is wrong, but bombing a tank factory is a-ok? Sure the tank factory contributes to the enemy's war-making potential, but that probably doesn't matter much to the workers who get blown to shit.

It doesn't matter to the workers, but seriously, bombing a tank plant and going out with flamethrowers and murdering all men, women AND children in some village in Poland or Belarus or wherever else? You seriously don't see any difference?

Yes, you can call it hair-splitting, but deliberately killing humans for the sake of killing humans is generally considered evil. This is why most people separate the Nazi racial cleansing from other actions that caused mass death. Also, it is notable how people separate the bombing of Dresden from other carpet bombings because in Dresden, the case for industrial targets is not so well-pronounced. If it were, there'd be few people speaking about that.

Killing a worker because he makes tanks is more of a reason, repugnant as it is, than killing a Jew so that he never make any Jewish babies and "spoil the race", or kill some other Untermenschen just because they are a "lower race". Justification matters, because intent is factored in when we consider the morality of an action, and also, by proxy, the legality. Consider accidental homicide and premeditated murder, for example. Those are morally different categories and thus treated as legally different categories as well. Even if it doesn't matter for the dead person just WHY someone killed him - by accident or because he planned to?

[Darksider]

Obviously the crimes perpetrated by the Axis were orders of magnitude worse than anything the Allies did during the war, I'm certainly not attempting to equate the two. I was simply asking what justification the allies used to enact bombing campaigns which, despite their best efforts to limit them, inflicted considerable civilian casualties (particularly the U.S. firebombing campaign against the Japanese.) You're saying that since the factories themselves were the targets rather than the people working in them, that made the bombing justified?

[PeZook]

There is also a certain utilitarian argument to be made: if you target civilians a lot, it breed resentment in the targeted populace, which will probably lead to more and more conflict later on.

So it is prudent to balance your desire to end a war as quickly as possible, and your desire not to fight the war AGAIN in fifty years (possibly with you in an entirely worse situation) because everyone in the country you just defeated now hates you like all hell. That's the justification for all those attempts to civilize warfare as much as you can "civilize" an act of mass killing: nobody wants to be engaged in a hundred year long blood feud with one's neighbors.

There are obviously many, many, MANY gray areas, exceptions and plain fuckups in any war, of course.

[K. A. Pital]

You're saying that since the factories themselves were the targets rather than the people working in them, that made the bombing justified?

Exactly. A place which has no industry is unlikely to be a target, and targeting such a place would mean you're doing an attack just to kill people. On the other hand, a place with lots of industry is a target even if one wants to limit casualties to a minimum, because not attacking factories during a large war can mean the difference between victory and defeat. And suffice to say that in case of World War II, the defeat of the Allies would mean a long and painful end for many races and nations; I wouldn't say "Man in the High Castle", but it would probably make the destruction of Indians in America pale in comparison.

[TheHammer]

A soldier is trained to wield weapons and kill. A civilian is not. The expectations and liabilities of a solider and a civilian are different.

This is why killing soldiers is legitimate, but killing civilians is not.

I could see your point in the case of an army volunteer knowing they might fight and die for their country. But a person who is drafted probably didn't want to be there, otherwise they'd have been a volunteer. In any case, if you are considered to be a citizen of a nation, then like it or not you are still an asset to that nation. A factory worker who builds tanks signs up to work in the factory either by choice or forced by his government to do so. All legal precedent aside, I do not consider their life any more sacred than the person who drives that tank on the battlefield. If you were an enemy of that nation they both play their role in causing damage to your people and property.

As to what is considered legitimate after the fact, as opposed to war crimes is often determined by who wins. Dresden, Nagaski/Hiroshima - probably would have been considered war crimes had the Axis won.

[Samuel]

As to what is considered legitimate after the fact, as opposed to war crimes is often determined by who wins. Dresden, Nagaski/Hiroshima - probably would have been considered war crimes had the Axis won.

Nope, there were precedents for such actions by the Axis. The Germans bombed Belgrade- even though the Yugoslavian government declared it was an open city and German troops were over running the country- because it was a communications and command and control center. The Germans also bombed Rotterdam in order to get the Dutch to surrender. The only reason they had lower casulties is because their planes weren't as good and civilians fled the city.

[TheHammer]

As to what is considered legitimate after the fact, as opposed to war crimes is often determined by who wins. Dresden, Nagaski/Hiroshima - probably would have been considered war crimes had the Axis won.

Nope, there were precedents for such actions by the Axis. The Germans bombed Belgrade- even though the Yugoslavian government declared it was an open city and German troops were over running the country- because it was a communications and command and control center. The Germans also bombed Rotterdam in order to get the Dutch to surrender. The only reason they had lower casulties is because their planes weren't as good and civilians fled the city.

Wasn't the Belgrade bombing later determined to be a war crime? Justification, or precedent aside - What I'm getting at is "war crimes" can be defined any way the victors want them to be.

[Samuel]

As to what is considered legitimate after the fact, as opposed to war crimes is often determined by who wins. Dresden, Nagaski/Hiroshima - probably would have been considered war crimes had the Axis won.

Nope, there were precedents for such actions by the Axis. The Germans bombed Belgrade- even though the Yugoslavian government declared it was an open city and German troops were over running the country- because it was a communications and command and control center. The Germans also bombed Rotterdam in order to get the Dutch to surrender. The only reason they had lower casulties is because their planes weren't as good and civilians fled the city.

Wasn't the Belgrade bombing later determined to be a war crime? Justification, or precedent aside - What I'm getting at is "war crimes" can be defined any way the victors want them to be.

I'm assuming that the Axis wouldn't make any action a war crime if they also engaged in it, just like unrestricted submarine warfare wasn't considered a war crime because the US used it against Japan.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I'm assuming that the Axis wouldn't make any action a war crime if they also engaged in it, just like unrestricted submarine warfare wasn't considered a war crime because the US used it against Japan.

Considering that the Nuremberg trials explicitly disallowed the tu quoque defense, I think your assumption goes too far (the example of unrestricted submarine warfare is the only exception of which I'm aware, and that seems to have been entirely due to Admiral Nimitz's affidavit).

[K. A. Pital]

A soldier is trained to wield weapons and kill. A civilian is not. The expectations and liabilities of a solider and a civilian are different.

This is why killing soldiers is legitimate, but killing civilians is not.

I could see your point in the case of an army volunteer knowing they might fight and die for their country. But a person who is drafted probably didn't want to be there, otherwise they'd have been a volunteer.

The draft is a law which is signed by the elected government, and it is seen as a social contract between the people and the government, just like taxes. Ask people if they honestly want to pay taxes. Few would be so socially responsible to actually say "Yes, I like paying them".

All legal precedent aside, I do not consider their life any more sacred than the person who drives that tank on the battlefield. If you were an enemy of that nation they both play their role in causing damage to your people and property.

Little children and women are "assets" as well, and their life is about the same worth as that of a tank driver? Bullshit.

[Metahive]

All legal precedent aside, I do not consider their life any more sacred than the person who drives that tank on the battlefield. If you were an enemy of that nation they both play their role in causing damage to your people and property.

So in your opinion "war crime" is a superfluous concept? Once someone counts as "the enemy" he's fair game in every respect? Since you also never explained just when someone is worthy of getting labeled "the enemy" ("damage to your people and property" leaves quite a lot of leeway) I guess it might as well be just an act of convenience to do so. Excuses for war come cheaper by the dozen, "War of Jenkin's Ear" anyone?
Why even stop on the international level? You can even declare group A, B and C within your own country to be the "enemy" you are at "war" with, make them outlaws and have every action taken against them automatically fully justified.

As to what is considered legitimate after the fact, as opposed to war crimes is often determined by who wins. Dresden, Nagaski/Hiroshima - probably would have been considered war crimes had the Axis won.

What I'm getting at is "war crimes" can be defined any way the victors want them to be.

One question, do you apply this just to international warfare or is that reflective of your outlook on life in general?

[TheHammer]

All legal precedent aside, I do not consider their life any more sacred than the person who drives that tank on the battlefield. If you were an enemy of that nation they both play their role in causing damage to your people and property.

So in your opinion "war crime" is a superfluous concept? Once someone counts as "the enemy" he's fair game in every respect? Since you also never explained just when someone is worthy of getting labeled "the enemy" ("damage to your people and property" leaves quite a lot of leeway) I guess it might as well be just an act of convenience to do so. Excuses for war come cheaper by the dozen, "War of Jenkin's Ear" anyone?
Why even stop on the international level? You can even declare group A, B and C within your own country to be the "enemy" you are at "war" with, make them outlaws and have every action taken against them automatically fully justified.

I don't know that the concept of a "war crime" is superfluous, but I think it should certainly be judged on a very specific case by case basis. Some war crimes are obvious, killing surrendering soldiers would generally be considered a war crime. But sinking a ship loaded with liberated POWs who once they reached arms would be back to fighting you? I think not.

As to your second point: Justification for the war isn't at issue. With the acknowledgement that war itself is an atrocity, I'm saying that once you are engaged in warefare valuing a civilians life over a soldiers is asinine - particularly if that civilian contributes to the war effort in some capacity. I'm just struck by the hypocrisy of for example blowing up a bus loaded with soldiers and saying "well that's war", while blowing up a bus full of civilians on their way to work in munitions factory and saying "what a terrible tragedy!".

As to what is considered legitimate after the fact, as opposed to war crimes is often determined by who wins. Dresden, Nagaski/Hiroshima - probably would have been considered war crimes had the Axis won.

What I'm getting at is "war crimes" can be defined any way the victors want them to be.

One question, do you apply this just to international warfare or is that reflective of your outlook on life in general?

If you're wondering why I made that statement, I'm just looking at facts. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. There are many incidents that have occured in recent times that could have been defined and prosecuted as war crimes and aren't... I don't really know where you are going with that question otherwise.

[TheHammer]

The draft is a law which is signed by the elected government, and it is seen as a social contract between the people and the government, just like taxes. Ask people if they honestly want to pay taxes. Few would be so socially responsible to actually say "Yes, I like paying them".

And that has to do with what exactly? And not to nitpick, but not all governments are "elected".

Little children and women are "assets" as well, and their life is about the same worth as that of a tank driver? Bullshit.

You have to judge things on a case by case basis. As a reasonable human being you can look and say that killing a three year old is not the same thing as killing an adult in terms of threat level, and thus how they should be treated.

However, again I'm struck by your apparent dehumanization of the tank driver, and soldiers in general. In your last statement, you are flat out valuing the life of one human being over another. Do you think that tank driver's family would consider his life worth less than that of anyone else? While that tank driver himself might be willing to lay his life on the line in defense of those women and children, that doesn't mean it holds ANY less value.

[Metahive]

Some war crimes are obvious, killing surrendering soldiers would generally be considered a war crime.

Why? Your criteria don't make it obvious. Surely a captured soldier has the chance to flee and unless you plan to hold them prisoner forever you have to hand them over once the war is over and so they might face you again in the next war.

Therefore they should at least be mutilated into uselessness. I think of cutting their limbs off, gouging their eyes out and bashing them over the head until they don't know left from right anymore. Denying the enemy potential assets is the most important thing after all. War is hell!

With the acknowledgement that war itself is an atrocity, I'm saying that once you are engaged in warefare valuing a civilians life over a soldiers is asinine

No it's not.

- particularly if that civilian contributes to the war effort in some capacity.

Just how far-reaching should "contributes to the war effort" go in your opinion. Please be concrete here. There are lots of excuses that can be made to justify massacring every single civilian, to "break enemy morale" for example. Leave them with nothing to fight for and you've won!

I'm just struck by the hypocrisy of for example blowing up a bus loaded with soldiers and saying "well that's war", while blowing up a bus full of civilians on their way to work in munitions factory and saying "what a terrible tragedy!".

OK, I'm pretending you're taking the piss here and not really genuinenly baffled by this distinction, but figure this - one's shooting at you the other isn't. Yeah, blew my mind too.

If you're wondering why I made that statement, I'm just looking at facts. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. There are many incidents that have occured in recent times that could have been defined and prosecuted as war crimes and aren't... I don't really know where you are going with that question otherwise.

You failed to answer my question, is your "only the strong prevail" suggestion something you limit to actual warfare or your general idea of how the world works?

[TheHammer]

Why? Your criteria don't make it obvious. Surely a captured soldier has the chance to flee and unless you plan to hold them prisoner forever you have to hand them over once the war is over and so they might face you again in the next war.

Therefore they should at least be mutilated into uselessness. I think of cutting their limbs off, gouging their eyes out and bashing them over the head until they don't know left from right anymore. Denying the enemy potential assets is the most important thing after all. War is hell!

I'm not going down this slippery slope with you. If you have a captured a soldier you have essentially robbed him of his ability to make war on you. If he is free and not surrendering then he's still a very credible threat to you now or in the near future. That is a reasonable line of thinking. You are dragging things off into absurdity.

With the acknowledgement that war itself is an atrocity, I'm saying that once you are engaged in warefare valuing a civilians life over a soldiers is asinine

No it's not.

Yes it is. Any other declarative statements?

Just how far-reaching should "contributes to the war effort" go in your opinion. Please be concrete here. There are lots of excuses that can be made to justify massacring every single civilian, to "break enemy morale" for example. Leave them with nothing to fight for and you've won!

I've given concrete examples. Look in previous posts.

I'm just struck by the hypocrisy of for example blowing up a bus loaded with soldiers and saying "well that's war", while blowing up a bus full of civilians on their way to work in munitions factory and saying "what a terrible tragedy!".

OK, I'm pretending you're taking the piss here and not really genuinenly baffled by this distinction, but figure this - one's shooting at you the other isn't. Yeah, blew my mind too.

Who said anything about being shot at? If I bomb the bus carrying soldiers from several thousand feet they were never a real threat to me. Please note, I'd be bombing them with munitions created in factories staffed by civilians... I hope the point is not lost on you yet again.

You failed to answer my question, is your "only the strong prevail" suggestion something you limit to actual warfare or your general idea of how the world works?

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Nowhere did I say "only the strong prevail", although if history teaches us anything its that the majority of the time that's true. What I'm saying is the winners of wars tend to dictate terms to the losers. That includes accusing the leaders of said losing side of war crimes and punishing them how they see fit. Are you disputing that fact?