I'd remind of the "unwritten laws of war" which are (nearly) universally obeyed. These include certain rules which all partsipants know and accept, for example waving a white flag or rising hands up mean "I / we surrender" etc. There are numerous others which have historical background.
During the WW II flying was a very new way of war. I think parachute which was introduced to save pilots' lives is usually white on purpose because in the air pilot is unprotected: he can't hide or fight back (pistol is not counted although it was perhaps used). To me shooting a parachuted pilot is about equal to shooting to the back. I also think that kind of shooting is mostly not spontaneous but is related to the direct order from above command or superior to shoot "nazis", "white bandits" or whatever. Thus claiming that kind of shooting "legal" is rather questionable. If it is a "war crime" is another case but it although breaks the universally accepted norms not to shoot a helpless man even if he is an enemy. At least it is very shameful and doesn't give a very good view on the opponent and his morals generally.
Machine-gunned whilst parachuting
Donitz was found not guilty of this charge at his trialgaussianum wrote: * While Karl Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, allied officers were not tried in spite of their acknowledgment that they had used the same practice.
Only in the case of leaders of nations entering into war.Since there was no strict, legalistic definition of warcrime, before the end of World War II,
In respect of armies in the field, there was a legal frame-work for what acts could be considered a war crime, the Hague Conventions
No.it ultimately becomes a moral/ethical issue, to decide wether or not gunning-down parachuting pilots can be considered a warcrime at the time, or not.
At the time of WW2, the guide lines were quite clear.
It was only a war crime to shoot unarmed uniformed military personnel, if they were attempting to surrender, or they had already surrendered.
In the case of a pilot baling out of his aircraft, seeing he was merely trying to escape, and not surrendering, shooting him is not a war crime.
Seeing, thanks to the Allies, you live in a country where a reasonable amount of free speech is allowed, you have every right to do so.Hence, I have every right to use the expressions: " warcrime ", " crime against humanity", or simply " crime", to describe this issue.
However, it has to be your own personal opinion on the matter, because legally it wasn't
I
Do you know of any orders to shoot downed pilots, and if so, of the reasoning behind these orders that allows you to reach these conclusions?Harri wrote:I'd remind of the "unwritten laws of war" which are (nearly) universally obeyed. These include certain rules which all partsipants know and accept, for example waving a white flag or rising hands up mean "I / we surrender" etc. There are numerous others which have historical background.
During the WW II flying was a very new way of war. I think parachute which was introduced to save pilots' lives is usually white on purpose because in the air pilot is unprotected: he can't hide or fight back (pistol is not counted although it was perhaps used). To me shooting a parachuted pilot is about equal to shooting to the back. I also think that kind of shooting is mostly not spontaneous but is related to the direct order from above command or superior to shoot "nazis", "white bandits" or whatever. Thus claiming that kind of shooting "legal" is rather questionable. If it is a "war crime" is another case but it although breaks the universally accepted norms not to shoot a helpless man even if he is an enemy. At least it is very shameful and doesn't give a very good view on the opponent and his morals generally.
FWIW, the first claims I have heard about parachuting pilots being shot at originate from the Polish airforce during the September 39 war. In that case it was claimed German pilots were doing this.
All the best
Andreas
As far as I know Soviet pilots had some kind an order to shoot parachuted Finnish pilots (and desants, these two were "bundled") at least during the Winter War. There are a few (at least two) known cases during the Winter and Continuation Wars and IIRC they all took place over the Soviet or occupied territory.
Basically it was the same as executing of a POW but the constant fear of spys was probably behind the order (compare this for example to the cases of the reconnaissance aviators of whom many were sentenced as spys in USSR although not necesssarily executed). When spys are executed this is only logical. Fighter pilots who shot parachuted pilots were decorated in USSR, so it could not be strictly forbidden either. It is well known that all Soviet pilots didn't accepted this.
It is also possible that only certain units or pilots who had fought in Spanish Civil War or against Japanese before the Winter War had adopted this shooting of parachuted pilots.
Basically it was the same as executing of a POW but the constant fear of spys was probably behind the order (compare this for example to the cases of the reconnaissance aviators of whom many were sentenced as spys in USSR although not necesssarily executed). When spys are executed this is only logical. Fighter pilots who shot parachuted pilots were decorated in USSR, so it could not be strictly forbidden either. It is well known that all Soviet pilots didn't accepted this.
It is also possible that only certain units or pilots who had fought in Spanish Civil War or against Japanese before the Winter War had adopted this shooting of parachuted pilots.
The point of having this forum is to present the best and most detailed sourced information to our readers on historical questions. The forum rules exist to promote that object. This disagreement -- as well as gaussianum's problem with moderation in the H&WC section -- have been thoroughly aired (see the thread "Selective treatment of poster's offensive remarks, at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=97625 ). Our intelligent readers can make up their own minds about the merits, or lack of merit, of the criticism. It's time to get back to the forum's goals -- quality sourced information. Having exhausted the possibilities in this thread, it's time to move on.
cheers
cheers