In a series of threads about Killer Presidents a thread from 2000 was linked to that made the claim that George HW Bush in WWII had strafed Japanese sailors “in the water” or “in a life boat”
What is the basis of this claim? Googling a bit I have found:
Rick MacArthur Publisher of Harper’s Magazine saying that Harpers broke the story and “ The press covered it up, didn’t want to publish it.”
I find some conspiracy minded sites that repeat the claim and, alarmingly to me, repeat the claim that the media was “covering it up” e.g. : *
Last October a 1944 document surfaced w/strong circumstantial evidence that Bush strafed 2 survivors in a lifeboat, a war crime. Newsweek, US News, LAT at the least refused to say anything or ask Bush, though Newsweek tracked down survivors in Japan. Harper’s published 2 weeks ago & still not a word in NYT*
**
What is the Straight Dope here? Source of this? What did it say? How big a splash was there?
**
Would this even have been a war crime? War is all about killing the enemy.
I’ve seen newsreel clips from WWII, a cameraman inside one of the planes filmed the crew doing just that, deliberately shooting survivors in a lifeboat. The documentary made the point that this was shown openly with no public outcry and the crew weren’t charged with anything.
I have no idea if Bush participated in such activities.
The Geneva Convention specifically protects combatants who have been placed hors de combat – out of the fight. They are required to be treated humanely in all cases, and must be protected against violence that threatens life or person. Not knowing the specifics of the allegations against Bush, shipwreck survivors would certainly be entitled to such protection.
Cite? Are you sure it isn’t only when they’re picked up?
They’re in a boat, maybe armed. They’ve not been captured, so are they really hors de combat? How is this different from a rifleman running back to his lines?
Note there wasn’t a big thing about it before the November election (to discredit Republicans in general). To me that suggests there was less to it than that faked memo Dan Rather presented.
I’d have to say this was legal (assuming it happened). Japanese sailors are military not civilians. And just because they’re in a lifeboat doesn’t put them “out of the war” - if they were picked up by a Japanese ship they would presumedly go back into active service. So they were a valid target.
Right. “Out of the war” basically means captured and made a POW. Shipwreck survivors are still combatants. That doesn’t mean that strafing shipwreck survivors is moral, however, and if Bush really did this it would certainly reflect poorly on him. However, I’ve never heard of this claim before today, and the idea that the media is covering up Bush Sr.'s alleged offense smacks of conspiracy wacko thinking.
At the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, having sunk all the troop carriers, Intelligence figured that in the warm waters the currents where the ships had sunk would carry several thousand survivors ashore, alive. Fighters and those bombers with 8 - 12 forward firing guns (Mitchells, Havocs, Beaufighters) were sent back out to strafe the survivors. While there were (anecdotally/apocryphally) Allied pilots who actually sought to avoid carrying out that order, I do not recall any effort by the Japanese government then or subsequent to the war to bring charges against that action or even to seek an apology. (Of course, any official action by Japan would have been immediately met with the specter of Nanking, Bataan, and a host of similar actions, so discretion was probably a safer choice on their part.)
there might have been one or two who would rather not have gone on such a mission. However in the German retreat from Normandy after the breakout, the retreating Germans were no threat to anyone, merely trying to get the hell away. They were straffed to the point were it was possible to walk along roads on bodies of horses and people without ever touching the ground.
“He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day” and the object was to ensure that other day never came for as many as possible.
My Father, otherwise a really nice guy, told how he and his associates at an airfield in New Guinea shot at a parachuting Japanese who had recently been trying to kill them with his airplane. They only had M1s, 1911As and a Tommy gun, so he was only hit once.
I don’t think it would even reflect poorly on Bush if he strafed survivors of a shipwreck. WWII wasn’t exactly fought using Marquess of Queensbury rules.
Actually no, the Germans were falling back to their prepared defensive lines along the Franco-German frontier, where they regrouped and resumed their strong resistance to the Allied forces. Any Allied soldier who let some Germans go because of sympathy or a belief they were now harmless probably came to regret his decision in the eight months of fighting that still remained before Germany surrendered.
Shipwrecked sailors are specifically classified as hors de combat by the Second Geneva Convention and it si the responsibility of contracting powers to “collect” them and care for them.
My reading of newspaper articles from 1993(which evidently didn’t get covered up ) would indicate that Bush Sr. was a bomber pilot, and they dropped a 500 pound bomb on a Japanese trawler which was hauling munitions(ammo and guns) in a harbor in Palau. Supposedly fighters from the USS San Jacinto strafed the lifeboats.
The Harper’s Magazine article was already written before this info became available, with the discovery of the sunken armed trawler in question, so the article said that Bush strafed lifeboats.
actually yes. The breakthrough occurred near St. Lo and the majority of the German army escaped through what was called the Falaise Gap. The “prepared defensive lines along the Franco-German frontier” were 400 miles to the east and there was very little opposition for the whole 400 miles. The Germans were able to get breathing room to regroup at the frontier because our supply system simply couldn’t keep up with the pace of the advance, so we had to slow down.
A rifleman running back to his lines is by definition not out of the fight. A rifleman who is wounded, disoriented, incapacitated, disarmed, or any combination thereof is out of the fight. A solider retreating is not out of the fight. A shipwreck survivor is by the precise wording and intent of the Geneva Conventions entitled to similar treatment.
However, wounded or shipwrecked by its own does not mean hors de combat. The Monty Python knight who gets all his limbs chopped off and is still threatening the hero to a duel is an example of wounded, but not hors de combat. Similarly, sailors in a lifeboat armed with a machiine gun are not out of the fight, sailors clinging to their last hope on flotsam clearly are entitled to protect by the letter of the law.
No, it does not. Common Article III is as clear as it needs to be that hors de combat doesnt mean captured.
It must be stated that these protections were explicity written out in 1949. I don’t recall how the Hague Conventions which predate Geneva prescribe for such persons. I’ll do some checking.
) would indicate that Bush Sr. was a bomber pilot, and they dropped a 500 pound bomb on a Japanese trawler which was hauling munitions(ammo and guns) in a harbor in Palau. Supposedly fighters from the USS San Jacinto strafed the lifeboats.