Pride in Germany article

I took issue with your comment:

Your point irrelevant to that comment. Indeed as the wiki quote I offered showed one of Smith's subordinates countermanded the order so if your point was that those who disobey such orders are hero's the Phiilipines presents at least one case of such a heroic effort.

If you had just stated your point I doubt any here would disagree although the amount of heroism required varies considerably from country to country as the case above illustrates (the subordinate being exonerated for countermanding Smith's order and Smith himself being court martialed and convicted sets rather a different tone than one would expect set by say the SS or the Kempo. Yet there were those in both the Japanese and German militaries who did "take the high road". A thread honoring them would be appropriate IMO>

 

"Harry "Breaker" Harbord Morant (9 December 1864 – 27 February 1902) was an Anglo-Australian drover, horseman, bush poet, military officer and convicted war criminal.

While serving with the Bushveldt Carbineers during the Second Anglo-Boer War, Lieutenant Morant was arrested and court-martialed for war crimes- one of the first such prosecutions in British military history. According to military prosecutors, Lt. Morant retaliated for the death in combat of his commanding officer with a series of revenge killings against both Boer POWs and many civilian residents of the Northern Transvaal" - Wiki
Just thought this would be relevant to this thread and, hopefully interesting.

 

Wasn't there some controversy over his convictions though?

 

To some extent...he's seen by some as a scape goat...there's a great movie concentrating on the whole affair...umm, what's it called...? Oh, Breaker Morant. : )

 

Actually, lwd, it's quite relevant to my point. Pointing out the atrocities committed in the Philippines show that soldiers of all countries and any rank can get out of hand. Many atrocities committed by soldiers are exacerbated by religious, ethnic and/or racial differences and often are tacitly condoned or even ordered by higher authority. Thus, there is even more pressure to conform to such behavior and so resisting pressure to torture/kill enemy pows or kill innocents is even more morally heroic, as you have alluded to. As per your suggestion, I believe I will start a thread on this topic and see where it goes.

 

And a great movie it was. "Shoot straight, ya bastards. Don't make a mess of it."

 

Some Americans may be a little bemused about the Australian attitude towards Poms...Pom is short for "Dirty rotten stinking Pom.'
We don't like them much as a people...why? Because they have treated us (Australians) as second rate dirt right from the beginning...even in war they have used us to shield their own troops from the worst of it...and made us scape-goats for everything and anything...even today they look down on us - That despite bettering them in almost every field these days...So put this story in context, juxtapose the above written over any/every situation between Australians and the English (NOT British) just English...rather a "rock ape" (Poms word for Australians) than one of ours!
You begin to see why this trial and execution was controversial...

 

Cac, this was an interesting episode of Who Do You Think You Are on the comedian Billy Connolly's family tree. The atrocities carried out in India were unbelievably barbaric by the British.

 

New story for me...pretty full on too! Thankyou...

 

But that's not the same as saying what happened in the Philippines was the same as what happened in Poland. It also ignores the change in attitudes and conventions in the 19 th century vs the mid 20th century.

Supperior authority is in many cases not uniform in how they view such actions either. In Vietnam immediate superiors may have ordered or encouraged it in some cases while higher-ups discouraged it. Sort of like Smith in the Philippines. In Poland their were very few anywhere in the chain of command that took issue with it. As we seem to agree those few did so at great risk to themselves both physical and reputation and in some cases to their own families. I guess one way of looking at it is the greater the evil the greater we should honor those who stand against it. But even that has various shades. It's one thing to not participate it's another to take action against such activities.

 

I believe that the POME actually referred to Aussie at one time (Prisoners Of Mother England". Aussie have turned the word around to mean English bastards.

KTK

 

Hhmmm...there are about three schools of thought...
The theory I adhere to is that back in the convict days the English officers wore a tall black hat with a white pom pom...the regular soldiers wore a tall black hat with three red pom poms

Here a picture of a single pom pom hat...

 

What changes in attitude? Killing women, children and babies was just as abhorrent in the 19th century as it was in the 20th! In the Philippines it was easier due to racial and religious differences. In Poland it was virulent ethnic hatred that allowed them to blind their morality. In each case the victims were portrayed as being less than human.

 

And then theres King Herod...Killing babies to try and get Jesus...

 

Was it? By modern standards perhaps but by the standards of the time? I don't think so. Just look at the evolution of how surrender was perceived. In the 19th century it was permissible to refuse to accept it. By the mid 20th century that was no longer permissible under the conventions of war.

One of the things that makes atrocities easier is to define the victims as not "us". The general acceptance of what constitutes "us" has grown over the years.

In any case I consider the rational for the actions an important factor:
Is it deliberate?
Is it retaliation?
Is it retaliation in kind?
Is it ordered?
Is it official policy?
...
One could go on in Poland the answer to 1, 4 and 5 above is Yes while to the mitigating question 2 and 3 the answer is arguably no. I the Philippines the answers to 1 and 4 would be yes but 5 would be no with 2 yes and at least for some of the incidents 3 would also be yes.

 

Apples and oranges here, lwd. I'm talking women and children vs soldiers and you're talking soldier vs soldier. Rape and murder were crimes back then that could easily send you to the gallows.

 

Or not. I'll go with "or not". There are laws and there are customs with how they are applied and enforced. The trend over time is pretty clear. Application and enforcement is also a function of the "us" or "not us" paradigm and the perception of us has grown over time. Isolating on "women", "children", "old men", or "soldiers" and not looking at the whole is not conducive to understanding. My use of surrender was meant to be an illustration of the change over time. If you want to look at say rape you'll find a soldier was much more likely to be convicted of it in WW2 than in the 19th century especially if the victim was a lower class member of the enemy population. The definition of murder is also subject to change over time. Reprisals in 19th century law were not necessarily "murder" even when they were extreme.