When Goring sounded Galland out whether Allied pilots should be strafed after bailing out, Galland was horrified and replied it went against the morals of the Jagdwaffe. Goring agreed as the suggestion was originally asked by Hitler.
Galland claims there was no further broaching of the subject. However he was aware of instances of Jagdwaffe pilots shooting at parachuting aircrew. It was not a widespread practice, nor was it with the Allied air forces, but it did happen.
Regards digger
It is obvious you don’t know anything about the actual application of law, as it nearly never covers the actual case.
The funny part is you probably never even read the Hague convention as it states:
According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit, are intended to serve as a general rule of conduct for the belligerents in their mutual relations and in their relations with the inhabitants.
It has not, however, been found possible at present to concert regulations covering all the circumstances which arise in practice;
On the other hand, the High Contracting Parties clearly do not intend that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written undertaking, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders.
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
Believe what you want to believe Drake, but until you find me evidence that the shooting of an unarmed member of the enemies armed forces is illegal, merely because he’s unarmed . I will stand by my statement.
ps, Here’s the rules of war for you to read 
I already did.
As far as I know it is illegal in any country to kill a person who has no means to harm you. As the specific case of the chuting pilot is not covered en detail by the convention the national law of the belligerent applies. For that law the pilot is merely a guy in odd clothing who has been shot.
With civilians that is indeed the case.
As the specific case of the chuting pilot is not covered en detail by the convention the national law of the belligerent applies. For that law the pilot is merely a guy in odd clothing who has been shot.
No. The person is a uniformed member of an enemies forces, therefore he is not covered by the civilian code of law.
Is it illegal to drop bombs on enemy troops even if they have no weapons capable of defending themselves with?
Is it illegal to bombard second-line troops even if they are unarmed ?
Is it illegal to shot down an unarmed enemy forces cargo plane ?
Do I have to go on with more examples that show that your statement that it is illegal to kill an unarmed enemy, is not based on fact
I am not a lawer, I cant say for sure it was illegal.
But I know for sure one thing:
There was a code of ethics ( I dont know if that is the proper word) or unwriten law between the Britons and the germans in 1939-43, and that code was no to shoot a pilot who escaped from a wrecked airplane.
Just look at the case of Douglas Bader who bailed out and was nearly welcomed by the Luftwaffe pilots in the ground. The same could be said about several german pilots who escaped above the British mainland in the Battle of England and landed unhurted.
Perhaps the increase strain imposed by the allied bombings and the escalade in the need of retribution in 1944-45 could explain the behavior of some german pilots killing some allied aircrewman ( if was some case, I am sure there must some some incident like that)…but, about the cases strafing a already defeated pilot by part of the U.S.A.A.F fighter pilots…well…maybe there was no codes between the americans and germans.
Unfortunately the USAAF broke that unwriten laws, not once but several times.
Exactly.
I think those arguing for the ‘moral’ view of war conduct are objecting because it’s unsporting rather than illegal or not justifiable in pursuit of victory.
We all draw arbitrary lines on what we regard as acceptable and unacceptable conduct.
In war, they often don’t make a lot of sense, particularly when judged against the basic aim, which is to win, and the basic method, which is to kill and maim the enemy until he surrenders.
What would those objecting to shooting the parachuting pilot say about shooting in these situations.
Enemy plane drops wheels in apparent surrender (or maybe controls damaged - who knows?)
Enemy fighter still flying, with visibly badly wounded pilot struggling to maintain consciousness.
Bomber has all gun turrets out of action; has jettisoned bombs harmlessly before reaching target; has turned back towards base; but is still flying. The pilots in it are analogous to a pilot in a parachute, except they’re in a plane.
British pilot parachutes and lands successfully in Britain; returns to base; and is running to a new plane on an airfield being strafed by the Germans. Or vice versa. Is he a legitimate target on the airfield? If so, why wasn’t he between the time he parachuted and the time he was about to fly another plane? If not, when does he become one? Why? What changes his status?
Same situation as in 3, except the strafing aircraft will hit non-combatants like mechanics, who have no means to defend themselves. Are they legitimate targets? If not, why not?
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
READ IT, UNDERSTAND IT and then write again and btw. to qualify as a combatant one has to carry arms openly, if there are no arms he does no longer count as a combatant, but non combatant member of enemies armed forces.
If they happen to be in a town it is definatly illegal, even covered by the bombardment (although it was intended for artillery bombardment) section of the hague convention.
See above
Not covered, though the cargo plane has a similarity with cargo ships, i guess you could look in that section for how it should be dealt. And I guess this also depends on where the plane is, if it is in his own countries, neutral or enemy air space.
Your examples are completely useless in the context, as we are still talking about pilots on a rope. They are different situations and would have to be dealt with independantly of this topic.
My points are the very reason they included this specific point explicitly in the later additions, but it can be even derived from the then existing rulebook.
There is an unstated assumption in much of this discussion that parachuting pilots were unarmed.
Pilots often carried pistols.
A pilot hanging from a parachute with a pistol had a rather better chance of destroying an attacking plane than a rifleman facing a tank.
Should tanks not shoot at riflemen?
A pilot + 9mm pistol vs. fighter plane is unarmed. He is completely incapable of inflicting damage. This changes again if he lands and a squad of GI approaches, as he poses a thread to them, they sure as hell may shoot.
But even then, most german pilots didn’t carry sidearms, as the cockpit of the me109 for example was very cramped and they had difficulties gettin out with the additional package.
The tank is usually not alone, so his killing the infantryman saves the lives of his surrounding support troops, again very different situation, they are in actual combat.
In every case of self defence (defence of others) there is the principle of proportionality. You are not allowed to blast someone out of his shoes with an assault rifle, if he approaches you with a spoon (at least in europe).
Another basic principle is that the threat has to be contemporary. These are fundamentals of law for centuries and they too were principles upon which the convention was built
No, he is armed. Just inadequately.
But not without hope. Here’s one case of a plane being brought down by a single round of .303, which is only 7.62mm even if it’s a rifle rather than pistol round
http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/nt39.htm
And another one
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/richt.htm
The latter was by shooting the pilot.
Was it wrong to shoot the pilot rather than the plane?
The tank is usually not alone, so his killing the infantryman saves the lives of his surrounding support troops, again very different situation, they are in actual combat.
There’s a lot to dispute in that in a real war, but even if we take it as stated what’s the difference between killing a rifleman with no hope of defending himself against a tank to save the lives of the tank’s side and doing the same with a parachuting pilot? They both happen in combat. They both advantage the killer’s side.
What’s the difference between shooting a parachuting pilot and grinding weapon pits and the men in them with tank tracks?
Do the men in the weapon pits have a better chance than the pilots?
In every case of self defence (defence of others) there is the principle of proportionality. You are not allowed to blast someone out of his shoes with an assault rifle, if he approaches you with a spoon (at least in europe).
Another basic principle is that the threat has to be contemporary. These are fundamentals of law for centuries and they too were principles upon which the convention was built
That sounds like the standard principles of self defence in civil law. Those principles have nothing to do with war. If they applied in war, your justification for the tank killing the rifleman would evaporate. The tank crew would be guilty of a war crime, because of the lack of a contemporary threat to them and their disproportionate response.
You guys are seemingly ignoring the more personal side of the humanity of the pilots concerned.
If I had many of my buddies, family and cooleages killed nby enemy pilots, I would surely not bother to check if he was or not surrendering I would just blast him, to stop him doing it again.
Besides the fact that a 7,62mm rifle round is several times as powerful as a 9mm pistol round how on earth is a person hanging in a chute falling 3m/s suppossed to hit a fighter plane which moves with more than 200m/s in all directions with usually 9 bullets. Did you ever shoot a P38 or Luger? You are already lucky to hit sth as big as a plane at 100 m while standing still. The chance of damage or even a hit is so abysmal, your chance to get hit by a lightning several times in a row is definatly higher. The fact that a plane has been brought down by a single round of X thousand shot into the air by infantry has nothing to do with the pilot. The pilot is as armed as a peasant carrying his pocket knife when approaching a squad of GI. They should obviously shoot him immediatly, as he is a civilian who has taken up arms.
I just saw it was a japanese plane, famous for their superior armor. And omg Richthofen you got to be kidding me, not even the same war. And he was in his plane, do you want to tell me it was a targeted shot at the pilot, rofl, they were shooting at the plane. Even the 20mm AA were no longer capable of seriously threatening the fighterbombers with ground fire late in the war in europe.
Lol, did you read my extract from the hague convention. Civil law DOES apply to the pilots situation. And the pilot is no thread to anyone at that moment.
Btw, the infantryman is a HUGE thread to the tank crew, he only needs to climb on top of it and throw a grenade into a hatch or shoot in it. The thread is not to the vehicle but the crew. Now tell me how you want to compare that to the pilot. This is just an idiotic example and like I already stated a completely different situation. And usually the tank wouldn’t use the main gun to shoot the infantry but his mg.
No idea.
He’s armed.
He needs to use his initiative.
That’s what he’s paid for.
He’s in a lot better position than a rifleman facing a tank that can move at 30 mph + with lots and lots of big and little bullets and no risk of the crew being hit by the rifleman’s hugely powerful 7.62mm or thereabouts weapon. Or .50 cal or mortars or grenades or, a lot of the time, various anti-tank weapons.
The fact that it’s a lousy chance for the pilot, and rifleman, doesn’t matter.
Both have a better chance than an unarmed cargo plane shot down by a fighter, or a merchant ship torpedoed by a submarine, or countless other instances of an unequal fight.
Did you ever shoot a P38 or Luger?
No.
I don’t think that the American P38 Lightning fighter was in Australian service by the time I was in uniform. Even if it was, we would have got into a lot of trouble for shooting our own planes.
Ahh, I should have read past P38 before answering. I see you mean a Walther P38 and Luger pistol.
The 2nd AIF didn’t capture enough pistols from Rommel to go around. If the Italians had had them we might have got enough to go around, and in perfect unused condition, too.
I had to make do with the US Army M1911 .45 pistol and Webley .45 revolver, and other odds and sods.
You are already lucky to hit sth as big as a plane at 100 m while standing still.
Well, that’s a revelation.
I didn’t realise they could actually go that far.
Nobody I knew could hit anything much past 25 metres, and often not too reliably at that range.
Btw, the infantryman is a HUGE thread to the tank crew, he only needs to climb on top of it and throw a grenade into a hatch or shoot in it.
HUGE???
A threat??
Maybe in movies.
There’s a reason the crew can lock the hatches down.
Depending upon tank design, poking a muzzle into a driver’s vision slit while sitting on the hull mightn’t be that easy, either, with the main barrel depressed and the turret rotating.
As for “only needs to climb on top of it”, have you ever been on an armoured vehicle of any type firing .30 or .50 MG? I have. A rifleman as exposed to that fire as a pilot in a chute is has a lot less chance of survival than the pilot being fired at by a plane. Armoured vehicles aren’t gun platforms that constantly move in three axes.
Also, even if infantry get on top of a tank, the odds are that another tank will deal with them. That’s one reason they carry canister. Takes a bit of paint off the tank, along with everyone standing outside it.
The thread is not to the vehicle but the crew. Now tell me how you want to compare that to the pilot. This is just an idiotic example and like I already stated a completely different situation.
Okay.
Here’s another idiotic example for comparison.
The tank is disabled.
The crew flee from it. Unarmed. Some wounded, some on fire, some both.
They are in exactly the same or worse situation as the parachuting pilot, fleeing a disabled vehicle and trying to get to cover before they’re shot.
Normally they are shot, or shot at, as they come out of the tank.
Do you think they shouldn’t be?
If not, why are they legitimate targets but not the pilot?
And usually the tank wouldn’t use the main gun to shoot the infantry but his mg.
You think so?
What did they use canister for in WWII and subsequently? It has absolutely no use for anything but anti-personnel purposes. EDIT Sorry, forgot, also very good for clearing fire lanes in scrub etc.
Guess how the Australians and maybe Americans, used armour piercing rounds as anti-personnel in Vietnam, and very effectively too.
Anyway, a GPMG against a rifleman is an unequal fight.
Lol, did you read my extract from the hague convention. Civil law DOES apply to the pilots situation. And the pilot is no thread to anyone at that moment.
I’m not clear on what you’re referring to.
Are you referring to this extract at your post #28?
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
If so, where does it say anything about civil law applying to combatants?
I note that nobody has bothered to answer the questions I posed earlier at #27. Doesn’t someone want to have a go at them?
If Drake were right, all the infantry would need to do to win every battle is to go in to the attack unarmed, since then it would be illegal for the defenders to shoot at them lol!
Yes, psycic attack! Get up, march forward and hug the enemy!
What if the defenders dropped their arms?
Can you have a nil all draw in war?
What if one of the unarmed sides broke whatever the Hague Convention says by being supposedly defenceless yet, say, giving the enemy the heel of their palms under the chin or nose, or getting behind them with a hand on their chin and a quick twist, or kicking them to death? Sort of like a silent commando raid against armed troops.
Would this get them thrown out of the war for unsportsmanlike behaviour?
Or would they just be the winners? Defenceless and disarmed though they were.
For me it is still murder … you know passing four or six times with your wingman over the crashed airplane just to be sure you have killed everyone of the crew members is some sort of pervert
but Rising Sun is right with the tank-crew which abandon their crippled tank
most of them were killed doing so, but there were no one who filmed it
Ill post the guncemera footage as soon as ive the time …
You guys have such sharp minds … awesome!
Why bother with arguments on the subject when you can just continue to throw
lousy (at best) analogies to “prove” your point.
Interesting topic Kotic, Yes please do. I would love to see this footage you talk about. I have seen lots of gun camera footage but have never seen anything like what you mention above.