Air attacks on civilian aircraft

[Brian]

Thanks again Amrit

I have note of a number of German air attacks on neutral ships prior to the commencement fo the Battle of Britain. It would seem that some of the crews should have gone to SpecSavers!!

Cheers
Brian

[Amrit1]

I think the following citation is very telling. BOAC was a civilian carrier but there is no indignation or perception that attacks on civilian aircraft was wrong. Rather, by highlighting the crew's courage the citation implies that it was accepted that civilian aircraft would be attacked.

29th October, 1943.
The KING has been graciously pleased to give orders for the undermentioned appointments to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

To be an Additional Officer of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire:—
Gilbert Rae, Captain of Aircraft, British Overseas Airways Corporation.

To be an Additional Member of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire:—
James Stanley Wood Payne, Radio Officer, British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Captain Rae and Mr. Payne have shown courage of a high order over an extended period in flying unarmed aircraft on. the civil war-time air service between the United Kingdom and Stockholm.

When Captain Rae was attacked over enemy occupied territory his aircraft was damaged by cannon fire and the undercarriage hydraulic system was put out of action. By the most skilful evasive tactics and by exceptional coolness in a most hazardous situation he was able to avoid further damage, to shake off his assailant and eventually to make a forced-landing in Sweden with the undercarriage retracted. The forcedlanding was made with such skill that comparatively little damage was done to the aircraft.

A few days later Captain Rae was again attacked by two German aircraft but by his skill and coolness he was able to shake off His assailants and land safely.

On a third occasion, half-way across the North Sea with a very heavy load, one of his engines failed and it was only due to superb airmanship that he managed to get back to base.

On each of these occasions Mr. Payne has been the Radio Officer of the aircraft. He has cheerfully and readily accepted the same risks as his pilot. His skill as a Radio Officer and his coolness in the face of extreme danger have been outstanding.

However, what is interesting is the frequent advertisement of civilian air transport in the national newspapers which implies that there may have been some accord to limit attacks by the parties.

[Csaba B. Stenge]

There must be also several friendly fire accidents, when the belligerents shot their own civilian aircraft mistakenly (I investigate such an incident now)

And don't forget, that the last US kill of the Korean war also was an Aeroflot airliner.

[Brian]

Hi Amrit

Great stuff!

But which Act covers the following;

"I think the same conventions that affected civilian ships also affected civilian aircraft, and the same attitude by the bellligerents i.e. ships/aircraft, even though civilian in that they do not carry defensive or offensive weapons, are assumed to be part of the war effort of said country and so fair game for attack. The only exceptions being craft from neutral countries amd they should be explicially marked as such."

Cheers
Brian

[Amrit1]

Oh dear, Brian, you had to ask

OK, maritime law is complicated and I would be the first to admit that I only have a cursory knowledge but :

1) the main legal principle affecting naval conduct was Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War (1909). At that time, the assumption was that all civilian ships were exempt from military action except where they maybe perceived to be carrying "contraband" (see link). You may know of the outrage over the sinking of the Lusitania and the cliam by the Germans that it was a legitimate target because it was carrying ammunition.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm

2) After WW1 the next main treaty was the Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments (1930), and especially Part 4:

• The following are accepted as established rules of International Law:
• (1) In their action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of International Law to which surface vessels are subject.
• (2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ro...don_treaty.htm

Though the rest of the Treaty lapsed, Part 4 was reiterated in 1936, and no other treaty replaced it before the war.

So, as I said, the conventions were that civilian ships were not to be attacked. However, they could be searched for contraband (material that could help the war effort), and then taken into possession or sunk. Now, that obviously cannot be the case for aircraft i.e. searched, so the belligerents erred on the side that they carried contraband and shot them down.

However, read the bits about neautrality and the travel to and from a neutral country. It seems that, again, the principle that those travelling from or to a neautral country were "protected", hence why there were scheduled flights between Portugal and Britain (and generally unmolested)

I shall stop rambling now

A

[Amrit1]

BTW thought you might find this interesting

http://www.irishseamensrelativesasso...tory%20WW2.htm

[Brian]

Hi Amrit

Excellent material once again! Many thanks for responding. Another mention in Despatches!!

Cheers
Brian