"I've just broken the Geneva convention"
Discussion
I read a book about a 'Welsh' chap. It started with his life helping on a farm run by his family before the war and although he could have claimed a reserve occupation he volunteered, suggesting that it was to get away from the drudgery of life on the farm. He was intelligent, going to a grammar school, but university was out as his family needed his 'shoulders and back' as he put it in the book.
The book was true although with the caveat that locations and such had been changed so that his unit could not be identified. It is possible that he wasn't Welsh, hence the quotes.
He fought in the Middle East in the early part of the war and had been injured. He was treated and then his next posting was in charge of a unit during the invasion of Europe, just after the beaches were secured. They attacked a pillbox that had a field gun and machine guns. The unit inside had no hope of escape but the road it overlooked was an important artery. The chap was sent up to take the emplacement with his unit.
He lost a high percentage of his lads, I forget numbers now, I read this in my teens, in the attack and when the German unit ran out of ammunition they hoisted a white flag and came out with their hands raised. Once the group was clear of the pillbox, they were machine-gunned by a couple of the UK unit without orders. I am a bit vague on the details of the actual action. It was a very brief bit in the book. The image I have in my mind is a pillbox near to where I used to live in NW Kent. The main bit of the book was about how this affected the unit during the balance of their time in the war. One young lad had problems coping and became a dead hero.
The point of the book was the way that war changed him.
The thing that came over was that he felt that the actions of his crew were totally understandable as it had been done in the heat of the battle. The Germans should have, in his view, given up when it was apparent that the point of them being there, to stop transport on the road, had been blocked. Yet he felt guilt.
He returned to the farm but was unable to fit back into life there as he felt he'd been corrupted. He didn't shoot the Germans but supported the action and protected the offenders. His moral codes had been destroyed by what he had endured and what he'd seen.
The book, which was quite short, was in the form of a script of a play. There was his leaving of the farm, in hospital being visited by his mother, the close relationship being apparent. The shooting, a bit afterwards as they discussed it amongst themselves, on the German boarder, and then the homecoming. I believe (I might be wrong here) that it was made into a film.
I was given the book by a highly moral sort of aunt of mine - she wasn't actually married to my uncle, the first to die in the family in WWII, despite the ring and the service. She worked for WH Smith as a librarian. Not sure how that worked. After reading it we had a long chat about it and she sort of moved me towards the view that there are some actions which, although wrong on a number of levels, should at the very least be understood. She asked me the difference between what the machine gunners did and the U-Boat commanders who sank merchant ships. Her 'husband' was in the merchant navy.
Did the fact that they were under orders to sink shipping obviate blame? They were, after all, killing unarmed civilians. Transporting food fair enough, but for other civilians to eat as well as soldiers.
The problem with war is that it corrupts. There is only action, and the field of perception is very narrow. If it doesn't help your survival, why consider it further? It is easy to judge these blokes, very easy. What they did was horrific, against everything that we are supposed to be fighting to obliterate. They should be tried and the chap found guilty should be punished. Of course: it goes without saying.
Is his family shocked at what their son has become? Is he a stranger to them? Is he, like the chap in the book, a stranger to himself?
But the question remains: would you have sunk that low? There is no answer you can give with assurance.
Condemn the actions but accept that the soldier might not have been a monster before the war. He might be a product of circumstances and experience.
The book was true although with the caveat that locations and such had been changed so that his unit could not be identified. It is possible that he wasn't Welsh, hence the quotes.
He fought in the Middle East in the early part of the war and had been injured. He was treated and then his next posting was in charge of a unit during the invasion of Europe, just after the beaches were secured. They attacked a pillbox that had a field gun and machine guns. The unit inside had no hope of escape but the road it overlooked was an important artery. The chap was sent up to take the emplacement with his unit.
He lost a high percentage of his lads, I forget numbers now, I read this in my teens, in the attack and when the German unit ran out of ammunition they hoisted a white flag and came out with their hands raised. Once the group was clear of the pillbox, they were machine-gunned by a couple of the UK unit without orders. I am a bit vague on the details of the actual action. It was a very brief bit in the book. The image I have in my mind is a pillbox near to where I used to live in NW Kent. The main bit of the book was about how this affected the unit during the balance of their time in the war. One young lad had problems coping and became a dead hero.
The point of the book was the way that war changed him.
The thing that came over was that he felt that the actions of his crew were totally understandable as it had been done in the heat of the battle. The Germans should have, in his view, given up when it was apparent that the point of them being there, to stop transport on the road, had been blocked. Yet he felt guilt.
He returned to the farm but was unable to fit back into life there as he felt he'd been corrupted. He didn't shoot the Germans but supported the action and protected the offenders. His moral codes had been destroyed by what he had endured and what he'd seen.
The book, which was quite short, was in the form of a script of a play. There was his leaving of the farm, in hospital being visited by his mother, the close relationship being apparent. The shooting, a bit afterwards as they discussed it amongst themselves, on the German boarder, and then the homecoming. I believe (I might be wrong here) that it was made into a film.
I was given the book by a highly moral sort of aunt of mine - she wasn't actually married to my uncle, the first to die in the family in WWII, despite the ring and the service. She worked for WH Smith as a librarian. Not sure how that worked. After reading it we had a long chat about it and she sort of moved me towards the view that there are some actions which, although wrong on a number of levels, should at the very least be understood. She asked me the difference between what the machine gunners did and the U-Boat commanders who sank merchant ships. Her 'husband' was in the merchant navy.
Did the fact that they were under orders to sink shipping obviate blame? They were, after all, killing unarmed civilians. Transporting food fair enough, but for other civilians to eat as well as soldiers.
The problem with war is that it corrupts. There is only action, and the field of perception is very narrow. If it doesn't help your survival, why consider it further? It is easy to judge these blokes, very easy. What they did was horrific, against everything that we are supposed to be fighting to obliterate. They should be tried and the chap found guilty should be punished. Of course: it goes without saying.
Is his family shocked at what their son has become? Is he a stranger to them? Is he, like the chap in the book, a stranger to himself?
But the question remains: would you have sunk that low? There is no answer you can give with assurance.
Condemn the actions but accept that the soldier might not have been a monster before the war. He might be a product of circumstances and experience.
Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 8th November 21:34
Derek Smith said:
Condemn the actions but accept that the soldier might not have been a monster before the war. He might be a product of circumstances and experience.
Interesting post Derek.Your last sentence begs the question - are we supporting our soldiers in their time of need, what do we need to do to help them?
God only knows what some of these guys (and women) have seen
When I first read about this story I envisaged two or three frightened and panicked soldiers traumatised by just seeing some of their close friends killed in battle and losing self-control because of extreme combat stress.
What I heard on the video sound track was not much different to listening to three blokes casually and calmly bantering about whether or not they should let down the tyres on a car as a prank.
They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew exactly what the consequences could be.
There was no way there could have been a 'not guilty' verdict.
No doubt they have made life even more dangerous for their pals who are still out there.
What I heard on the video sound track was not much different to listening to three blokes casually and calmly bantering about whether or not they should let down the tyres on a car as a prank.
They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew exactly what the consequences could be.
There was no way there could have been a 'not guilty' verdict.
No doubt they have made life even more dangerous for their pals who are still out there.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Massive thread drift:The percentage of non-officer Royal Marines with degrees is higher than the percentage of non-officer ranks in the Army with 5 a-c GCSEs. There's a fairly high attrition rate during RM recruiting and training which means that few succeed if they only join because they have nothing better to.
I've always disliked cameras of any kind only for the sole reason they distract the user from their job, thus endangering their comrades and themselves.
He knew what he was doing - seemingly by his statement caught by the camera - and he got caught.
What sort of stink would have been generated if they (whoever that may be) had tried to cover it up?
There are rules of war and if you don't play by the rules then you might as well be the enemy.
What sort of stink would have been generated if they (whoever that may be) had tried to cover it up?
There are rules of war and if you don't play by the rules then you might as well be the enemy.
Chimune said:
desolate said:
tom2019 said:
Why should only one side play by the rules?
It's the rules we are fighting for. So if we break them why bother?We're out of Afghanistan soon. "The rules" mean nothing to The Taliban. Never have, never will.
Perhaps that's why they've never been beaten.
Rules in the Afghan - keep dreaming ...
Red 4 said:
Chimune said:
desolate said:
tom2019 said:
Why should only one side play by the rules?
It's the rules we are fighting for. So if we break them why bother?We're out of Afghanistan soon. "The rules" mean nothing to The Taliban. Never have, never will.
Perhaps that's why they've never been beaten.
Rules in the Afghan - keep dreaming ...
i confess to feeling at odds with this situation.
on the one hand we have the media view backed up by the somewhat stuff upper lippish senior offices saying this is beyond what a British soldier should be doing etc and it was beyond the convention etc etc and it feels to me a bit contrite and penitent.
a significant part of me thinks, this is the battlefield and five minutes ago this injured enemy was trying to kill me and in three months he'll be back and trying to kill me again and i doubt very much whether he would show me any kind of mercy under any kind of convention - we are talking about a terrorist borne faction that has extremely questionable stances on human rights within their OWN country, let alone towards foreigners.
this guy doesn't have my unequivocal support defending what he did but there is something about context here and the reality of the moment and the situation of battle. he did know what he was doing if the audio is to be believed so i'm sure the book will be thrown but is this a war crime or an atrocity? is it the same as rape in war? or a genocidal act? no not for me.
like i say a bit at odds.
on the one hand we have the media view backed up by the somewhat stuff upper lippish senior offices saying this is beyond what a British soldier should be doing etc and it was beyond the convention etc etc and it feels to me a bit contrite and penitent.
a significant part of me thinks, this is the battlefield and five minutes ago this injured enemy was trying to kill me and in three months he'll be back and trying to kill me again and i doubt very much whether he would show me any kind of mercy under any kind of convention - we are talking about a terrorist borne faction that has extremely questionable stances on human rights within their OWN country, let alone towards foreigners.
this guy doesn't have my unequivocal support defending what he did but there is something about context here and the reality of the moment and the situation of battle. he did know what he was doing if the audio is to be believed so i'm sure the book will be thrown but is this a war crime or an atrocity? is it the same as rape in war? or a genocidal act? no not for me.
like i say a bit at odds.
Puggit said:
It's the headline on the BBC news - I see no reason for this. Fine, catch the killer and punish him. But for god's sake, there is no need to publicise this and provide ammunition to the 'enemy'. This should have been kept within the Marines.
yet 'publicise' the nastiness of the enemy etc? propagandaappeals are outstanding regarding release of their names and the full video
Wow there are a lot more cus cus eaters here than I imagined, it's war , they are trained to kill and dumped the other side of the world to kill Taliban , then they kill one at the wrong moment and you lot are all "that's really not the spirit of things dear chap, we like our killing done nice and sportingly on our behalf"
Generally agree with those saying he should have been prosecuted for what sounds like a deliberately sadistic act. It's no good saying the enemy wouldn't do the same - to have any sort of moral high ground in Afghanistan we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards possible.
The only thing that could be said as a kind of mitigation is that fighting does strange and unpleasant things to people and I imagine this sort of thing was much more common in other conflicts but went largely unreported before the age of everything being on video. Not that it's a defence.
As a related aside, does anyone know what if any are the rules around filming while on active duty?
The only thing that could be said as a kind of mitigation is that fighting does strange and unpleasant things to people and I imagine this sort of thing was much more common in other conflicts but went largely unreported before the age of everything being on video. Not that it's a defence.
As a related aside, does anyone know what if any are the rules around filming while on active duty?
dai1983 said:
I've always disliked cameras of any kind only for the sole reason they distract the user from their job, thus endangering their comrades and themselves.
It's one thing taking the footage, it's another retaining it for future reference. Why keep it? Data or information doesn't have value if you don't use it. It was a momento like an old service pistol, or a piece of kit or uniform?
People can and do incriminate themselves via their use of cameras:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wale...
The thread about the Andrew MITCHELL stitch up has raised the issue of headcams. I've been in the company of police officers that said they'd be prepared to buy their own headcams and referenced their use by other police forces abroad. In a policing situation they can cut down malicious complaints from career criminals and help provide evidence that protects and supports officers.
Should the Marines been prosecuted? Where do you draw the line? Yes, it's a battlefield but the rules are the rules and they're not new they've been around for a while. The injured insurgent was in their care just as people are in the care of others in homes, hospitals and police cells and vehicles here. If I feel any sympathy for the convicted Marine it's due to the fact that people get away with stuff in the UK by playing the system and procedures, but that's nothing new and what happens when laws, rules and regulations aren't consistently applied. The video was stumbled upon while dealing with other matters but how much stuff that is known about gets conveniently buried?
It may have been humane to end the life of the injured chap. He may have been little than a mercenary participating for the pay, but even so if was more likely to die than to survive couldn't he have been helped on his way with a few morphine jabs without anything having been to be said or recorded? Or would that have left the unit with depleted morphine stocks until they got back to camp? Would they have had more pain killing shots back at camp to top up with?
Perhaps shooting a very injured person in the chest on the battlefield compares with withdrawing food and fluids to an elderly person in a hospital bed here under the Liverpool Care Pathway tick box form or calling out armed police or a farmer to deal with an injured deer at the side of the road after it's been hit by a car.
Something on the way it was reported on BBC Radio news earlier, I think it was reference to the first time anyone has been done for this since WW2, reminded me of the IRA people killed on Gibraltar a few years ago. I'm wondering how this aiding to death of an injured insurgent compares to 'friendly fire' incidents like the A-10 attack on British vehicles in Iraq and the USAF bombing that convoy of reporters that almost killed John Simpson.
IMO this incident is far less offensive or excessive than the US helicopter turkey shoot in Baghdad that Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning leaked.
How does the release of this evidence used to prosecute one of our own military to the press compare with the stuff leaked by Chelsea Manning and Snowden?
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 9th November 01:59
carinaman said:
It may have been humane to end the life of the injured chap.
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 9th November 01:59
convicted marine said:
"There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you 
. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."
. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff