soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Apr 3, 5:05 pm, "rhino" wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:105a364d-ca38-4a37-a631-a306df497303@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 3:00 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >> rhino wrote:
> >> > The same question applies to foreign-driven attempts on Churchill,
> >> > Roosevelt
> >> > and Stalin. I'd also be curious about attempts on lesser figures like
> >> > Eishenhower, Molotov, and similar figures who weren't quite in charge
> >> > but
> >> > were certainly very influential in their own right.
>
> >> I dimly recall a failed British assassination attempt against Rommell in
> >> 1941.
>
> > A dramatization of that is the opening scene of the old "Desert Fox"
> > movie starring James Mason, IIRC. It shouldn't be hard to find
> > details on the intertubes.
>
> I remember watching that one as a kid but haven't seen it since. I don't
> remember an assasination sequence but it's been a _long_ time.....
>
> > But, can a serving senior military officer BE "assassinated" in
> > wartime? Aren't they legitimate military targets at all times in the
> > circumstances of war? That would make Rommel (or Eisenhower if there
> > had actually been a plan to kill him in connection with Skorzeny's
> > Bulge effort) a casualty, not a victim of assassination.
> > Like Yamamoto, who was killed in action, not assassinated.
>
> That's an interesting argument but I'm not sure I buy it. Surely there is a
> difference between, for example, a lone gunmen deliberately seeking out
> Roosevelt and shooting him down at the behest of a foreign government, and
> the death under artillery fire of a general who just happened to be in the
> wrong place at the wrong time.

Certainly those are different, but neither really parallels the
scenario I outline--a military effort deliberately targeted against a
military leader. My argument is that by its very nature it can't be
called an assassination. (I could be wrong.)

> And just to complicate things further, given that Roosevelt, Hitler and
> Stalin were "Commanders-in-Chief" (or similar titles) for their respective
> militaries, would you describe them as casulties or killed in action if an
> assasination attempt had been successful?

Like they say, 'hard cases make bad law.' I would say that if
soldiers under orders killed any of these while adhering to
international law as far as uniforms, etc., then yes, KIA.

> Sorry, I don't mean to muddy the waters with a lot of philosophical hair-splitting.

Don't apologize. I started it, and expected some hair-splitting!

Supposedly, Wellington prevented an artillery battery from taking a
shot at Napoleon before the battle of Waterloo got started, remarking
to the effect that "generals had better things to do than shoot at
each other." That's very gallant, but even back then I doubt that
anyone would argue that it was forbidden or unlawful.

Narr