Survivors should be taken prisoner or shot whichever is the most convenient

[Namreg]

i was reading about a british merchant marine captain who was executed in world war 1 by germany for trying to ram a german submarine.

his actions were explained a bit further dwn in the article, where it states that churchill essentially gave his civilian captains two choices:
- fight the enemy (making you an unlawful combatant, so they can execute you if they catch you)
- run, and be prosecuted by the british for cowardice (with execution a possible punishment).

interestingly, churchill's orders state the following:

* 1: All British merchant ships to paint out their names and port of registry, and when in British waters to fly the flag of a neutral power.(preferably the American flag) (source: World crisis vol 2 p. 283)

* 2: British vessels are ordered to treat the crews of captured U-boats as "felons" and not to accord them the status of prisoners of war.(source: Simpson. Lusitania p. 36)

* 3: Survivors should be taken prisoner or shot whichever is the most convenient.

* 4: In all actions, white flags would be fired upon with promptitude.

points 2, 3, and 4 describe exactly the kind of thig we are always accused of doing... but "the good guys" did it.

of course, every war is a dirty war (people shoot at each other, after all), but i found it a bit surprising to see written orders by churchill to shoot prisoners "when convenient" and to fire upon white flags.

and this is the same man who supposedly did not want british special forces in WW2 to assassinate hitler because that would have been dirty?

 

[Namreg]

oh bloody hell, i forgot to link the article!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fryatt

 

[Mayhem]

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and use it almost everyday, but I have some concerns about this article. If you look up Churchills biography, where and when did he have the authority to give orders such as these? Why isn't there an attribution at the end of the article? They don't even link Churchills name to his own page which is very unusual. I would have to see more compelling proof before I completely believe this article.

Having said that, cheers to Cpt. Fryatt. Regardless of what the "rules" might have been, I believe every captain has the right and the obligation to defend his ship with every means possible. Thanx for the story.

 

[calpoon]

Forcing all civilians to fight in combat, without compensation, under the threat of execution without any legal grounds? Sounds like a fascist to me.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

War is ugly business. Thing is, there are decisions to be made that will put you, your/other men, and a lot of other consequences on the line.

It's a lot like working a prison. If you show the inmates you are soft they will pounce the first chance they get.

Same with war, you show the enemy you are soft and they will exploit that softness with all they got and keep doing it.