POW, Heroic or Not?

In another thread I and another member briefly debated the nature of being a Prisoner of War in the case of Senator John McCain who spent 6 years a PoW of North Vietnam where he was tortured to turn on his country, but would not break or accept a out of sequence early release ahead of his fellow prisoners.

I hold that his actions, and those of other servicemen and women who fought until their was no reasonable point of continuing resistance or until ordered to by higher authority and then spent the remainder of the conflict as a prisoner of war, are in fact as much hero's as those who were never forced to lay down their arms.

I would like to hear the thoughts of the rest of our rogues.

 

A good thread!

Wasn't there an incident with McCain on a flight deck of his carrier?

 

Do we believe that all who serve in combat are "heroes", or did they just do their duty (to their contry)?
If so, then POW belong in the same category.

McCain is in another category entirely IMO, he was offered early release through his father's connections, but refused.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

 

Pilots and crewmen really don't have a choice of resisting when shot down behind enemy lines, but regardless how servicemen end up as a POW, it's their actions during their internment that designates their measure of courage. Considering the length and severity of the treatment of POWs in Vietnam Nam, it would take a hell of a lot more courage than I have not to break, and then turn down a ticket home causing even harsher treatment. John McCain fits every definition of " hero". But I have pretty much echoed Lou's post which was well thought out.

 

I also agree with Lou.

 

IMO it depends on the individual situation. There are many ways one can become a POW. I would like to call them all, but I have read instances where it wasn't warranted.

 

Did McCain release that bogus russian hooker document about Trump?
Because that would change my opinion (not that it'd matter) about the guy.

 

I think if you are going to categorize some one as a 'Hero' a list of criteria needs to be met.

I think it differs from war to war but the act of surrendering could be rather heroic in some regards but not in others.

I do not know the name anymore, but look at that American Soldier in Iraq or Afghanistant who was 'captured' by the enemy (IE. he surrendered to the enemy) when it turns out he had actually gone AWOL and deserted his post and then endangered the lives of others who were sent out looking for him. In that matter, is being 'captured' considered the same as surrendering? The end result (being a POW) is the same even if they are two different actions.

If you look at German soldiers surrendering to the Russians in WW2, that could be considered heroic given that it was basically a death sentence for many. At the same time, many Germans turned tailed and headed West to surrender to the Allies, which I would consider a non-heroic action as they were essentially trying to save their own skins.

At the same time, you have to look at the actions of POW's while in camp. Is it considered heroic to become a camp informant so that you are treated better and have a better chance at survival? Or those constantly trying to escape...vs those who are just trying to survive and get by until the end of the war? Do wars from different time periods warrant different looks? Different hostile countries who impose harsh/inhumane treatments to their prisoners, does that automatically make then POW's heroic?

I think you'd have to almost make a case by case study instead of using such a broad term. There are definitely heroic surrenders and cowardly surrenders.

 

I agree

 

Lou nailed it. McCain was a hero, the circumstances of his capture and his actions while a prisoner make it so. Just being a POW does not make one so.

 

I was not as clear as I wished and that was my error.

I did not mean the simple act of becoming a PoW in itself confirmed Heroic status, but rather those who endured confinement in a PoW camp while maintaining their honor and loyalty to their uniform come what may does.

Think back when was the last time a US service person endured conditions that came close to the Geneva convention requirements consistently?

A Bergdahl or the fictional "King Rat" would not qualify, but surely the vast majority those held in Japanese camps would qualify.

 

My father inlaw was a POW in Germany in WWII, he did not think that he was a hero for that.

KTK

 

"I think, especially in WW2, many POWs did not face the same level of terror that he did" - I would rather be at the hands of the Russian/Chinese during Vietnam than the Japanese during WW2...The Japanese made them look like amateurs.

 

Maintaining any sort of integrity while "in the hands of the enemy" is possibly more difficult than being under fire. But I would agree being a POW doesn't qualify by itself for being heroic, Andrej Andreevič Vlasov's "POW army" is an extreme case but the amount of "allowable" cooperation with the captors is a very tough subject.

 

I don't think it's a binary answer at all which is sort of implied by some. To me anyone who willingly enters a situation where their life is at risk to support an ideal or help others qualifies to some extent as a hero. Their actions in that regard can degrade their status though (killing innocents deliberately). But some go above and beyond the minimum. Those who seek to escape (especially repeatedly) or in some other way continue their resistance are a level above that. How much perceived danger and how well they hold to their ideals makes a difference.

 

Another vote here that Lou nailed it in his first post.
Can't see that I'd need to add or qualify anything at all in that.