War ethics ....

[Clarets4me]

Interesting debate been running over an action during the North African campaign during World War 2 ... the episode occurred on December 14, 1941 on a mild North African night, as detailed in the book " SAS Rogue Heroes ", by historian Ben Macintyre.

After slipping onto Tamet airfield, in a single file formation that mimicked the planes they were about to demolish, Major Blair " Paddy " Mayne and his unit delayed planting the bombs. A long hut stood at the edge of the field where, diverting their attention, a light glimmered underneath the door, and “sounds of merriment” and a “mixture of German and Italian voices” came from within, writes Macintyre.

With weapons drawn and flanked by two comrades, Mayne kicked open the door to find a smoke-filled room, lined with confused and inebriated enemy officers whose “merriment” was slowly subsiding into an uneasy silence. Their guns were propped up against the wall, but some were wearing their side-arms. Mayne, according to Macintyre, broke the silence with the unmistakably Anglo-phonic (and even Bond-like) greeting: “good evening”.

By adding an immediate and terrifying clarity to what must have been a baffling confrontation, these three syllables sent the room of thirty into “pandemonium”. Mayne and his men opened fire and the scarpering officers put up what little resistance they could. This episode, as intimate as it was gruesome, “veered away from sabotage and close to assassination”, the author maintains, and it has dogged Mayne’s reputation ever since.

Macintyre concedes that “killing highly trained pilots was, arguably, an even more effective way of crippling enemy airpower than destroying the planes themselves”, although in his " Times " article, he argues that Blair Maine should have been Court-martialled .

Major Maine went on to win a total of 4 Distinguished Service Orders, but was denied a Victoria Cross. A campaign is still current to award him the Victoria Cross on a posthumous basis.

Discuss ....

[bobinho]

One thing you will ALWAYS find with revelations like this, is that whoever it is that’s asking the questions and making judgements, they will have NEVER seen a theatre of war first hand.

Want to know a man? Walk a mile in his shoes.

[elwaclaret]

I’d be very wary of a journalists ‘version’ of history. I’ll wait to see what proper researchers make of it…

[Spiral]

Please don't kill the enemy officers at the enemy airfield, they're busy getting drunk.

Nope. That's not how war works. It's hardly an allied combatant's fault if the enemy fails to guard his perimeter.

[Billy Balfour]

Nothing to see here. From what I can gather, nobody was waving white flags.

[Hipper]

The question to be asked is 'was his intention always to kill them'. You could find this out from his colleagues and any planning that went into the raid.

Where does Macintyre get his information?

[Murger]

If they were p*ssed up, then that's their problem. What's he supposed to do? Wait until they're sober? Nah.

[claret59]

There must have been thousands of scenarios such as this in WW2 and all the other conflicts of the last century when there was a greater understanding of the horrors of armed conflict, and what was 'fair in war.'' Hence the Geneva Convention. It is a sad truth that if you give a person a gun and train that person to use it then it will automatically lead to all kind of unjust tragedies.
It is difficult to pin point how this officer should have conducted his war aims in the situation where he is behind enemy lines and outnumbered.
How did the Emperor of Japan, and many of his followers, escape justice after WW2 having waged a cruel campaign against millions of people?

[mikeS]

SAS Rogue Heroes is a cracking book by McIntyre which is based on the SAS war diaries from the regiments archives. He says in the start of the book, that it is an 'authorised' history, not an official one'...'views expressed herein are entirely my own, and not those of the regiment'.

[Billy Balfour]

The Emperor of Japan was pardoned in the surrender terms - the terms said he would remain head of state as a constitutional monarch. We did start to prosecute Japanese war criminals, but the Cold War, especially in the Far East, put paid to that and sadly priorities moved on.

[Clarets4me]

Thanks for the early replies ... My Grandmother was one wife who received the " telegram " nobody wants on 27th July 1943.

War is a dreadful business. Would Mr McIntyre like to have explained to the wife, mother or sweetheart of a killed Allied soldier, airman or sailor that " we actually had the chance to eliminate the pilot who dropped the bomb/machine-gunned your loved one, but we didn't because it was " rather bad form " ?

" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm " - George Orwell

[JohnMac]

He played Rugby for Ireland and the British Lions before the war and was talented, utterly fearless and a natural leader.

Paddy Mayne was the epitome of a soldier who wouldn't be any good in a peacetime Army though. He drank to excess and brawled with and against anyone who opposed him or he disliked.

His conduct in action though was that of a warrior, always leading from the front and should have seen him awarded the Victoria Cross, possibly more than once.

Peacetime analysis may label him as a physcopath but at the time his actions were a morale booster for the Allies and absolutely terrifying for his enemy.

In short he did exactly what he was paid to do and what Churchill would have expected.

A complex man for sure but brave beyond belief.

[dsr]

Some fighters killed some other fighters during a war. Did the first lot have a moral duty to warn the enemy they were coming? Discuss.

Answer? No. End of discussion. IMO.

[Staniola]

SAS Rogue Heroes is one of the best books I’ve ever read. If you didn’t know it was true, you wouldn’t believe it. I think the BBC have dramatised it and will be shown in the autumn.

[Murger]

SAS Rogue Heroes is one of the best books I’ve ever read. If you didn’t know it was true, you wouldn’t believe it. I think the BBC have dramatised it and will be shown in the autumn.

Just ordered a copy on eBay.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Not much to debate for me.

I can see why he did it, but I'm not going to revise history and castigate him for it because I don't know what he'd been going through in the run up to that incident.

[2 Bee Holed]

Doesn't this book date back to 2017?
I'm sure I've already seen it dramatised on TV several years ago and the author narrates it.
I'm confused why this is being discussed now.
To answer your question, and don't forget these men are operating many hundreds of miles behind enemy lines, in just a few jeeps.
They can't exactly squeeze them in the jeeps and take them prisoner. Maybe tie them to back of the jeeps and drag them for the next few months until their mission is over? Or tie them up and leave them free to fly planes after? Did they all put their hands up or did one flinch and go for his side arm?
I can't believe I am even discussing this.
Brave fella this Paddy, he took over from Stirling after he was captured, if I recall.

[Staniola]

The three part series was a documentary, narrated by the author, as you say and it’s a few years ago. What I was referring to is a new dramatisation due in the autumn. FWIW I think Mayne did the right thing in a war situation. These blokes weren’t playing games and neither were the enemy.

[Clarets4me]

" Rogue Heroes " by Ben McIntyre was the original book published in October 2016, and is regarded as the official war-time history of the SAS. McIntyre was given access to regimental scrapbooks, records, regimental taped interviews and spoke to some of the few survivors of the war-time SAS.

" Rogue Warriors " was a 3 part BBC documentary, based on the book and narrated by McIntyre, first shown in 2017.

" SAS Rogue Heroes " is a forthcoming 6 part BBC Drama, directed by Tom Shankland, based on both the above. No firm screening date has yet been announced, I believe. A first glimpse is here ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdvzw7xa534

[IanMcL]

What was the intention, when entering the building, is the one line, which counts. As asked above. The difference between legitimate action and murder.

[dsr]

What was the intention, when entering the building, is the one line, which counts. As asked above. The difference between legitimate action and murder.

Surely the intention of men in uniform during war is to kill men in the opposite uniform? That is their raison d'etre. I doubt that soldiers in uniform who kill other soldiers (or airmen) on their home base, whether in uniform or not, can ever be said to have committed murder unless they enemy had already surrendered.

[evensteadiereddie]

We see the same double standards being applied today where Russian attacks are atrocities and murders whereas the Ukrainian killings are plucky victories...



The winning side will always get to do the write-up.

[dsr]

We see the same double standards being applied today where Russian attacks are atrocities and murders whereas the Ukrainian killings are plucky victories...



The winning side will always get to do the write-up.

In the same way as the Germans were portrayed as baddies and the Allies were goodies in the last war, presumably. And for much the same reason.

You see it with terror attacks too. The man who tried to kill people at Westminster Bridge was portrayed as a baddie, but the man who grabbed a steak knife and tried to kill the terrorist was portrayed as a goodie.

I wonder why ...

[Hipper]

Most raids like this will have some planning - how to get in, and out, what to do in various anticipated circumstances. Of course not everything can be anticipated and some very difficult dilemmas occur.

The question is therefore 'was the situation of the German officers anticipated' and 'what was Mayne's attitude to the enemy generally', along with a specific one regarding this incident - 'was there an opportunity for the Germans to surrender' and was it taken. The dilemma of course is what to do if they did surrender and became PoWs, but I doubt the Geneva Convention allows you to kill the enemy just because you can't take PoWs.

There are some cases of the Allies committing atrocities. The one I know is of HMS Torbay, a submarine, that on two occasions gunned shipwrecked survivors.

There were other cases of a more positive light when a German submarine sank the Laconia which was carrying mostly Italian PoWs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wehrm ... %80%931945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Torbay_(N79)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

[Hipper]

In the same way as the Germans were portrayed as baddies and the Allies were goodies in the last war, presumably. And for much the same reason.

You see it with terror attacks too. The man who tried to kill people at Westminster Bridge was portrayed as a baddie, but the man who grabbed a steak knife and tried to kill the terrorist was portrayed as a goodie.

I wonder why ...

In the Westminster Bridge incident, what on earth is there to wonder about?

[evensteadiereddie]

In the same way as the Germans were portrayed as baddies and the Allies were goodies in the last war, presumably. And for much the same reason.

You see it with terror attacks too. The man who tried to kill people at Westminster Bridge was portrayed as a baddie, but the man who grabbed a steak knife and tried to kill the terrorist was portrayed as a goodie.

I wonder why ...

It's not that difficult really, war reporting or accounts of derring do are hardly objective, are they?
Each faction always has and always will present their stance as being heroic and just no matter what the outcome may be.

[Goalposts]

We see the same double standards being applied today where Russian attacks are atrocities and murders whereas the Ukrainian killings are plucky victories...



The winning side will always get to do the write-up.

Double standards you mean the recorded civilian killings by the Russians in bucha et al ,the recorded rapes by the russians, the confirmed war crimes committed by the Russians, the intercepted calls and captured transmissions of Russian soilders bragging about it.

Your interpretation of double standards is positively putinesque

[dsr]

In the Westminster Bridge incident, what on earth is there to wonder about?

Exactly. And in WW2, what is there to wonder about, and in the Ukraine war, what is there to wonder about.

[evensteadiereddie]

In the same way as the Germans were portrayed as baddies and the Allies were goodies in the last war, presumably. And for much the same reason.

You see it with terror attacks too. The man who tried to kill people at Westminster Bridge was portrayed as a baddie, but the man who grabbed a steak knife and tried to kill the terrorist was portrayed as a goodie.

I wonder why ...

It's not that difficult really, war reporting or accounts of derring do are hardly objective, are they?
Each faction always has and always will present their stance as being heroic and just no matter what the outcome may be.

[evensteadiereddie]

Double standards you mean the recorded civilian killings by the Russians in bucha et al ,the recorded rapes by the russians, the confirmed war crimes committed by the Russians, the intercepted calls and captured transmissions of Russian soilders bragging about it.

Your interpretation of double standards is positively putinesque

My interpretation is positively putinesque?
No, my friend, your inability to grasp anything beyond the obvious is what's so clear here....
The whole point I'm making, and the quoting of the Russian atrocities supports this, is that each side will have no problem in justifying their actions or, indeed, glorifying them or even giggling at them no matter what the outcome.
It really is as simple as that.

[AlargeClaret]

I’d be very wary of a journalists ‘version’ of history. I’ll wait to see what proper researchers make of it…

While you’re quite right re: journo’s, though the journo in question is respected historian and author Ben Macintyre. This of course doesn’t make it gospel but it’s not some Daily Express or Twitter guff

[elwaclaret]

While you’re quite right re: journo’s, though the journo in question is respected historian and author Ben Macintyre. This of course doesn’t make it gospel but it’s not some Daily Express or Twitter guff

Quite agree. Just made me suspicious because it seems a very ‘modern’ reading of WW2 (and I didn’t bother checking). Most military historians accept that the SAS were working behind enemy lines and had little option to take prisoners, safely or otherwise.

Seems like someone wanting to create a hub-hub for sales, rather than a Historian’s view that context is king. Why does no-one criticise the Gurkers… they terrified their opponents by making it clear no quarter would be expected or given. I can only think journalists are scared of taking on Joanna Lumley.

[2 Bee Holed]

Most raids like this will have some planning - how to get in, and out, what to do in various anticipated circumstances. Of course not everything can be anticipated and some very difficult dilemmas occur.
- 'was there an opportunity for the Germans to surrender' and was it taken. The dilemma of course is what to do if they did surrender and became PoWs, but I doubt the Geneva Convention allows you to kill the enemy just because you can't take PoWs.

I think you will find Hitler had suspended the Geneva Convention for Allied soldiers caught behind enemy lines, they were to be executed on the spot.

[Hipper]

I think you will find Hitler had suspended the Geneva Convention for Allied soldiers caught behind enemy lines, they were to be executed on the spot.

He did it for Commandos after the failed raid on Dieppe. However that doesn't mean that the Allies had to abandon it - two wrongs don't make a right! Anyway, at the time of the OP's raid - December 1941 - Hitler's 'Commando Order' hadn't occurred yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order

[2 Bee Holed]

You are correct.
I still maintain that operating so far behind enemy lines means that some of the normal Geneva convention rules cannot be applied.

I strongly suspect that Paddy did the right thing in the circumstances. Seek and destroy.

Can we drop it now? It was 81 years ago. It's a bit like the Bob Lord stand's name. People have opinions and you have to accept they may differ from yours

[BennyD]

The fact he introduced himself and waited for their reaction justifies his response. If the Germans held up their arms and surrendered then, going with retrospective standards, the author may have a case. However, at the time he was well behind enemy lines with no infrastructure to take prisoners, what else could he have done? The fact they didn't hold up thrir hands and went for their weapons justified what happened next. Perhaps the leftists that will no doubt call for his reputation may eventually realise he was, in all likelihood, gay. Personally, I think he should have got a VC and I hope any campaign to get him one is successful.

[Spiral]

Perhaps the leftists that will no doubt call for his reputation may eventually realise he was, in all likelihood, gay.

What? What on earth are you on about?

[BennyD]

The fact he introduced himself and waited for their reaction justifies his response. If the Germans held up their arms and surrendered then, going with retrospective standards, the author may have a case. However, at the time he was well behind enemy lines with no infrastructure to take prisoners, what else could he have done? The fact they didn't hold up thrir hands and went for their weapons justified what happened next. Perhaps the leftists that will no doubt call for his reputation may eventually realise he was, in all likelihood, gay. Personally, I think he should have got a VC and I hope any campaign to get him one is successful.

[BennyD]

What? What on earth are you on about?

Let me explain to the hard of thinking; the cancellation/Woke culture seeks to denigrate the reputation of people previously thought of as heroes. If they realise that the hard drinking, macho, highly decorated warrior they are seeking to impugn was, in all probability, gay it may confuse their shallow minds as to what to do next. Also, it MAY have been one of the reasons he got 4 DSOs but never a VC. I'm not going to explain any further so do what I did many years ago, read about him and form your own opinion.

[Lancasterclaret]

Lots of war crimes done by all sides in WWII, and only a tiny fraction of them ever resulted in a prosecution during the war, or after the war

Almost certainly war criminals survived to serve in peacetime in the Bundeswehr, the JDF, but also in the armies of the victors as well

Was this a war crime?

I seriously doubt it, certainly by the standards of WWII

[BennyD]

You're reeling off some corkers on here tonight and if Im honest I didn't think you'd beat your madman rant at CT but fair play to you for topping everything with this little bit of homophobia

What homophobia? I think he is a legend and that he was hard done by by the 'Establishment'. I couldn't care less what his sexuality was, it's the Wokes out there that will be confused. Read what I posted again, inwardly digest, and revisit your conclusion (assuming you can admit when you're wrong).

[Spiral]

You're tilting at windmills.

[Devils_Advocate]

What homophobia? I think he is a legend and that he was hard done by by the 'Establishment'. I couldn't care less what his sexuality was, it's the Wokes out there that will be confused. Read what I posted again, inwardly digest, and revisit your conclusion (assuming you can admit when you're wrong).

Unsurprisingly you're too thick to even recognise your own homophobia and as for the other drivel you spouted on this thread and other threads tonight then I really hope you've been on the sherry cos if this is you sober then you have some real problems.

[Rileybobs]

Woke What a world we live in.

[Bosscat]

Bloody hell this board gets worse and worse at times

[daveisaclaret]

The woke left would rather hammer this man for war crimes than understand that he probably appreciated Sondheims.

[BennyD]

Unsurprisingly you're too thick to even recognise your own homophobia and as for the other drivel you spouted on this thread and other threads tonight then I really hope you've been on the sherry cos if this is you sober then you have some real problems.

I ask you again what homophobia? Please explain. If it's because I mentioned he might be gay, that doesn't constitute homophobia. Perhaps you are so keen to virtue signal you have lost track as to what you are talking about. Copy/paste the relevant sentences and I will explain why you are wrong.

[BennyD]

So DA, where was I homophobic? You suddenly seem very quiet when asked to prove the reason for your personal attack.

[Devils_Advocate]

I ask you again what homophobia? Please explain. If it's because I mentioned he might be gay, that doesn't constitute homophobia. Perhaps you are so keen to virtue signal you have lost track as to what you are talking about. Copy/paste the relevant sentences and I will explain why you are wrong.

You brought up his sexuality when it had no relevance at all to the conversation to use it in some kind of negative attack on a made up, non existent group of people who you've been brainwashed to hate by whatever gutter you source your news and information from.

Your use of someone's sexuality in this context is a form of homophobia but as said it doesn't surprise me that you are to thick to even realise what you were doing although that in itself that is no excuse.

[BennyD]

Bless you, you really are something incredibly special. I mentioned his sexuality in the context of the Woke/Leftie/Cancellation morons that are trying to hang a dead man. Where in my posts have I shown a 'Brain-washed hatred' of any made up, non existant group of people, whatever that/they/those are? I have said, and repeated, he was an extremely brave man and should have been awarded 2 VCs at least and whose character should be beyond reproach. If you are so blinded by your need to attack someone who has been reading about this stuff for over 50 years because I stated a FACT, then you are a bigger fool than I've ever given you credit for. Perhaps this demonstrates your rabid, unremitting leftism better than anything you have posted to date. Btw, using his (potential) sexuality in this context is absolutely fine, because I was using it against the idiots trying to wreck his reputation, not to denegrate one of the bravest men who ever served with the British Army. Perhaps you are a fully paid up member of said idiots, and that's why you are coming across as such a moron. Fyi, you still haven't itemised what I said that was so wrong. Please try again, there's a good boy.