PDA

View Full Version : Assassinated?



BRASSTURTLE
08-07-2009, 11:19 AM
Not looking to start a flame war here...

I am currently reading The Rescue: A True Story of Courage and Survival in World War II by Steven Trent Smith.

It is about the recovery & transport of Admiral Koga's personal copy of Z Plan & some 40 Americans from the Philippines in 1944 by the sub USS Crevalle.

The chapter dealing with Koga's rise to Commander of the Combined fleet referred to Yamamoto's demise at the hands of the USAAF P-38's as <span class="ev_code_RED">assassination</span>.

My question for the teeming masses:

Do you consider the Yamamoto mission an assassination?

I had never viewed a P-38 as an assassin's tool.
Not exactly a sniper rifle or poisoned umbrella, now is it?

I don't care to know if you think it was justified, or proper. Just if you think assassination is the correct term to describe what happened.

BRASSTURTLE
08-07-2009, 11:19 AM
Not looking to start a flame war here...

I am currently reading The Rescue: A True Story of Courage and Survival in World War II by Steven Trent Smith.

It is about the recovery & transport of Admiral Koga's personal copy of Z Plan & some 40 Americans from the Philippines in 1944 by the sub USS Crevalle.

The chapter dealing with Koga's rise to Commander of the Combined fleet referred to Yamamoto's demise at the hands of the USAAF P-38's as <span class="ev_code_RED">assassination</span>.

My question for the teeming masses:

Do you consider the Yamamoto mission an assassination?

I had never viewed a P-38 as an assassin's tool.
Not exactly a sniper rifle or poisoned umbrella, now is it?

I don't care to know if you think it was justified, or proper. Just if you think assassination is the correct term to describe what happened.

Zeus-cat
08-07-2009, 11:29 AM
The definitions I read say that assassination is done for political reasons. The admiral was killed for military and morale reasons, so I say he was not assassinated.

na85
08-07-2009, 11:39 AM
I'd say assassination is a pretty good description.

Admiral Yamamoto's G4M was intercepted and destroyed in a surprise attack by those 38's... similar to a sniper or something who comes out of nowhere, does the damage and fades into the night.

MD_Titus
08-07-2009, 11:57 AM
i'd go with assassination being a valid description. the manner in which it was done was akin to someone sneaking into the castle and slipping a blade through his ribs whilst he slept.

an astounding mission with a remarkable effect.

SeaFireLIV
08-07-2009, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I'd say assassination is a pretty good description.

Admiral Yamamoto's G4M was intercepted and destroyed in a surprise attack by those 38's... similar to a sniper or something who comes out of nowhere, does the damage and fades into the night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. An assassin is a killer of a political or religious leader for political or religious motives. But it can apply to other single people too.

1. Employ assassin in secret mission: In this case the P38s.
2. Make unexpected attack on nation leader.
3. Terminate with extreme prejudice.

The fighter pilots, for this mission became assassins. You could call them, for this mission, state-sanctioned assassins.

In this case the tool was the pilots and the P38s, rather than a individual\s with a knife or gun or bomb.

I would put aside the emotive quality of the word assassin and accept its clear meaning, it`s just what they had to do.

ImMoreBetter
08-07-2009, 12:03 PM
Assassination is not the politically correct word.
But it is a very accurate descriptive word.

Urufu_Shinjiro
08-07-2009, 12:03 PM
That's a tough call. If you know where a high ranking commander is and you send a sniper out to find him and kill him you could reasonably call that assassination. I think one would be more accurate though to call it the elimination of a military target, it's not like Yamamoto was a government leader of a political nature, he was a military commander, thus a primary target in war. The nature of the mission though does lend more to assassination than say if they found him on the battlefield at random and killed him, they knew where he would be and sent a plane to shoot him down. It's kind of a grey area I suppose.

waffen-79
08-07-2009, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
similar to a sniper or something who comes out of nowhere, does the damage and fades into the night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and sadly, that's the real "war winner", ESPIONAGE, covert ops, inteligence, comm decoding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I know, that knowing what's going to happen it's not enough, you still have to deal with the enemy, but that's just half the job done.

na85
08-07-2009, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
similar to a sniper or something who comes out of nowhere, does the damage and fades into the night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and sadly, that's the real "war winner", ESPIONAGE, covert ops, inteligence, comm decoding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I know, that knowing what's going to happen it's not enough, you still have to deal with the enemy, but that's just half the job done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Knowledge is power.

DKoor
08-07-2009, 12:13 PM
Assassination in war is called destroying an enemy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Not trying to be a smartarse, but it is what it is.

na85
08-07-2009, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
The definitions I read say that assassination is done for political reasons. The admiral was killed for military and morale reasons, so I say he was not assassinated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wikipedia says that assassination can also apply to a military situation.

To my mind: The targeted nature of the surprise killing is the compelling factor, not the motives behind it. (And certainly war is rife with political motivations)

MD_Titus
08-07-2009, 12:31 PM
assassination sounds better.carrys a more emotive and colourful tone.

elimination of an enemy general is a mouthful and lacks that sense of the theatrical.

Jediteo
08-07-2009, 12:48 PM
Perfectly legal attacking a military target with military means.
No different than attacking a convoy on a road with a general in a jeep.
It might "feel" wrong to kill a specific person, but unfortunatly that is war for you.

Hurri-Khan
08-07-2009, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BRASSTURTLE:

The chapter dealing with Koga's rise to Commander of the Combined fleet </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On his perspective it might be assassination, for US it's just another covert or special op. And for pilot.. just another sortie? xP


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

M_Gunz
08-07-2009, 01:47 PM
Lot of assassinated US Navy Sailors, US Army Soldiers, USAAF Airmen and US Civilians one Sunday on Oahu....

Bremspropeller
08-07-2009, 01:49 PM
He was killed.
Doesn't matter how you twist and turn it - it doesn't change the outcome anyway - he's dead.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-07-2009, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BRASSTURTLE:
Just if you think assassination is the correct term to describe what happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it is not the correct term.

BRASSTURTLE
08-07-2009, 02:04 PM
So nice to see the lack of flames.
No right or wrong here. Just opinion.

I had tried to think of similar situation, but only Rommel comes to mind & that falls more under the heading of "finding him on the battlefield at random."

The targeted nature causes me to view it as assassination. I must admit I did not feel this way when I typed out the original post, but after reading some of the replies, I think assassination might be correct.
However...
He was a legitimate target, being a military leader conducting military business in a war zone during declared war.

M_GUNZ: Not assassinated, murdered.

Choctaw111
08-07-2009, 02:06 PM
In a war, taking out an enemy military leader at a particular time, location, etc, regardless of means, should not necessarily be called an assassination. I just don't think the word fits.
The same thing could be done by a snipers' single bullet, or even a carpet bombing dropped from 50,000 feet. The same job is still getting done, whether clean or messy.

K_Freddie
08-07-2009, 02:07 PM
Wasn't there an Allied plot to assasinate Hitler, with lost opportunities, but after 1943 the Allies realised to continue this plan would put the German military into competent capable hands, resulting in a longer war.

Much the same as a plot to 'do in' Churchill to persuade the Brits to see 'Justice the German Way' (Isn't there something Super about that phrase http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

My memory is vague and too lazy to re-research... old timers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

na85
08-07-2009, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Wasn't there an Allied plot to assasinate Hitler, with lost opportunities, but after 1943 the Allies realised to continue this plan would put the German military into competent capable hands, resulting in a longer war.

Much the same as a plot to 'do in' Churchill to persuade the Brits to see 'Justice the German Way' (Isn't there something Super about that phrase http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

My memory is vague and too lazy to re-research... old timers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/w...xley_report_02.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/foxley_report_02.shtml)

The plan you refer to was Operation Foxley; an attempt to have a British sniper kill Hitler.

Other reasons for indecision included the desire to prevent Hitler from becoming a martyr to Nazis since the Allied goal was not just about defeating Germany but also to defeat Nazism in general.

M_Gunz
08-07-2009, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BRASSTURTLE:
M_GUNZ: Not assassinated, murdered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used that term for Steven Trent Smith or whoever he was quoting. Otherwise I'd say massacred.

VW-IceFire
08-07-2009, 03:18 PM
Yamamoto was a target as he was a military commander but lets not forget that Japan was largely run by the various branches of the armed services at the highest levels. So I see Yamamoto as being a target for military/morale reasons (thus a military target) but so as a political target due to the nature of the political and military situation in Japan.

Lots of words can be attributed...assassination would be one of them but I don't think there is a singular word that properly captures the entirety of what happened.

Friendly_flyer
08-07-2009, 03:20 PM
I too find the term troublesome in this case. Like others here argue, this is in the grey zone.

Hurri-Khan
08-07-2009, 03:34 PM
IMHO this is one of the cleanest military ops in the book. During war, using military intelligence, personnel and aircraft. Target was military leader in military transport plane.

It would get much more complicated if Yamamoto had been in civilian plane, or op was issued by president or it would have been done using 3rd nation's planes etc.

The state of war is pretty much the key here IMHO, without it one could say the dropping of atomic bombs was a genocide.

As a assassin's tool a P-38 would go there where a car bomb or poinson would :\


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

RAF_OldBuzzard
08-07-2009, 03:35 PM
Like it or not, I think that the term fits for the Yamamoto mission. It was targeted at one specific individual.

The term isn't 'pretty', but then, neither is war.

K_Freddie
08-07-2009, 04:00 PM
Orf with the head... and the rest follows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mortoma
08-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Even if it was an assassination it was warranted and helped the war effort much. Call it what you want, it was needed and beneficial.

xTHRUDx
08-07-2009, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Assassination</span> = the targeted killing of a public figure. Assassinations may be prompted by ideological, political, or military reasons. Additionally, assassins may be motivated by financial gain, revenge, personal public recognition, or mental illness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

based on that definition, i'm going to say he was assassinated

deepo_HP
08-07-2009, 04:35 PM
the word 'assassination' translates different to french, as of 'l'assassinat' it means 'murder in the first degree' (i think... planned murder by purpose?) - but probably better related is 'l'attentat'. which is also used in german and origins in latin.
the term assassination, used in the means of 'attentat', is in my view the (attempted) murder of a chosen, single target, may it be a person or a well defined, closed group. i'd say, that it is not only restricted to political, but also military or other public individuals of special importance.
furthermore, imo, assassinations are planned usually by small groups or individuals against a more powerful, or more 'legitimated', institutions.

the main points would be that there is a 'higher' intention behind the attempt, but nevertheless an assassination is always an illegal action - from the perspective of the jurisdiction of the assassinated.
exceptions to the illegal status of assassination has been seen by romans and also nowadays (germany, france, italy...), if the purpose of the murder is a resistance against tyranny - which is, of course, hard to evaluate before history is written.

so, the yamamoto-shootdown fulfills the plan and the single target, but it probably can't be considered illegal, not even by japanese views.
i would rather call it an ambush - a military operation of strategical value.

on common use, there are possibly more meanings to the word. the term itself has no specific value... it is generally neither a morally good or bad action.
an example might be the attempted murder of hitler by elser in 1939. that time it was seen as a despiteful action, few years later people had a different opinion - and nowadays assassination is considered the most legitimate way of resistance in the third reich.
there is also the movie 'the assassination of jesse james by ...' (long title, long movie), which is only an assassination, if jesse james would have been the glorified outlaw of the fairy tales (and by that an otherwise legitimate murder would have become an assassination).
not to talk of the assassination of john lennon...


so, perhaps the term is sometimes used in a more emotionally flavoured way. but from an abstract perspective, neither pearl harbour nor the yamamoto-shootdwon are assassinations, imo.

BillSwagger
08-07-2009, 04:41 PM
With out considering text book definitions, i always thought the killing of a military or political leader was assassination when it takes place beyond the place of battle.
You could also say when ever an assassin is sent, the act he performs is assassination, no matter what context.


Its not the only time,

I think in 1983 when the US decided to bomb Libya, the US dropped bombs directly on (then) president Kadafi's house, for no other reason but to kill him.

deepo_HP
08-07-2009, 04:53 PM
yes, that might be...

i am not sure, what is included by the word in english.
as i said, it is easier in french. in german there is, on the other hand, no direct expression for 'assassination' - in jurisdiction there is 'targeted killing' for the one-sided legitimate killing of identifiable targets.

i would think, there are even more meanings to it, depending on culture. wouldn't be an assassin in japanes even be more of a job?

Freiwillige
08-07-2009, 05:10 PM
I would have to say assassination is the correct term here.

He was the specific target. It was not an accidental meeting. The planes were flown at a very conservative airspeed and with fuel everywhere they could put fuel. The mission was planned with only Yamamoto in mind, anything else was a bonus.

Tully__
08-07-2009, 05:42 PM
I had always thought that military operations were intended to destroy materiel or capture a tactical/strategic position or persons of interest. Targeting a specific person for death as the goal of an operation either on or outside the battlefield is to my understanding outside the scope and mandate of military operation. This would qualify the Yamato operation as an assassination in my mind.

Jaws2002
08-07-2009, 06:08 PM
Those planes went there specifically to kill him. The whole mission was planed to accomplish that goal.
He orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor and he had it coming. A lot of Americans died because of his "brilliant plan", that hit before the war declaration. They were going to pay him back one way or another anyway.

Is nothing wrong with the world "assassination". Is just this days a lot of people turned totally q*u*e*e*r with this whole "politically correct attitude".

SeaFireLIV
08-07-2009, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Those planes went there specifically to kill him. The whole mission was planed to accomplish that goal.
He orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor and he had it coming. A lot of Americans died because of his "brilliant plan", that hit before the war declaration. They were going to pay him back one way or another anyway.

Is nothing wrong with the world "assassination". Is just this days a lot of people turned totally q*u*e*e*r with this whole "politically correct attitude". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess I`m out of touch, but I had no idea that `assassination` was a politically incorrect word.

Waldo.Pepper
08-07-2009, 06:52 PM
This is sure to get the computers at the NSA and GCHQ humming overtime.

But if during the first Gulf War Papa Bush was shot down by 'ol Sadamn while on Air Force one would this be an assassination?

"Commander in Chief" head of the military.
"Air Force One" An Air Force Plane.
Wartime - therefor gloves off - right?

MD_Titus
08-07-2009, 07:07 PM
i'm unsure where the notion that assassination is either a dirty, politically incorrect or odious term or act - any more odious than any other means or ways of killing - came from. war is war, death is the aim, no?

in that a targeted, specific strike on one person is the matter at hand to describe it as, among other things, assassination fits well enough. and yes waldo, i'd call that assassination, unless it was pot luck. like we tried with saddam and bombing various places he may have been. or with castro and the exploding cigars.

some ways are more novel than others.

deepo_HP
08-08-2009, 01:44 AM
tully brought up a good argument for consideration and i agree about the aim of war. a just war is about defense, protection, lack of other means to restore a rightful situation and so on. there are, of course, highly debatable concepts like preemptive wars, for example, but death is always to avoid if possible. death can never be the aim of a just war.
that would be the reason, why bombing cities is always a questionable action. and in this regard, the killing of a selected target as well.

i thought, the term 'targeted killing' would fit better for the yamamoto-shootdown, but probably includes a direct related reason for doing so, like protecting/saving hostages.
without, it would indeed leave it as assassination.

WOLFMondo
08-08-2009, 01:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
The definitions I read say that assassination is done for political reasons. The admiral was killed for military and morale reasons, so I say he was not assassinated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was political as much as military. The Army and Navy controlled Japan.

Given the changes in government in Japan after the fall of Prince Konoye's and Tojo's governments he could have very well ended up as Prime Minister if not one of the other positions controlled by the Army and Navy had he been asked.

Nearly all the positions in Tojo's government were from the Army or Navy and the Army and Navy had complete say over the 'big three' positions in Japanese government.

Over the years nearly all the really important Army or Navy staff had a crack at some government position and he would have been a prime candidate for PM if the Army backed him.

tomtheyak
08-08-2009, 02:17 AM
Coulpa points to consider:

1) Assassination in my mind refers to the killing of an unsuspecting, unarmed/defenceless target.

2) Yamamoto had 2 Bettys (thats 10x MGs and 2x 20mm cannon!) and an escorting force of zeros!

The P-38s did not go in and slaughter an unarmed foe in cold blood; they they had to fight to liquidate the Admiral. In my mind this moves it away from an assasination.

horseback
08-08-2009, 11:18 AM
An assassin is generally defined as someone who murders suddenly and by surprise, particularly if his intended victim is a politically important person.

Yamamoto was a flag officer in a military aircraft on a military mission in a time of war, which made him a military asset that could be legitimately targeted. By definition, a killing in that context is not murder, unless it is done by a traitor, an ununiformed member of the military or a spy/agent of a non-military organization.

The pilots of those P-38s were in uniform, and their aircraft were clearly marked as US military aircraft, so the charge of assassination is applicable only in the hyperbolic and sensationalistic sense most often used by journalists and high school sophomores.

cheers

horseback.

MD_Titus
08-08-2009, 11:22 AM
i don't think it was ever a charge of assassination, just if it could be viewed that way, or that word could be stretched to cover it.

SeaFireLIV
08-08-2009, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
An assassin is generally defined as someone who murders suddenly and by surprise, particularly if his intended victim is a politically important person.

Yamamoto was a flag officer in a military aircraft on a military mission in a time of war, which made him a military asset that could be legitimately targeted. By definition, a killing in that context is not murder, unless it is done by a traitor, an ununiformed member of the military or a spy/agent of a non-military organization.

The pilots of those P-38s were in uniform, and their aircraft were clearly marked as US military aircraft, so the charge of assassination is applicable only in the hyperbolic and sensationalistic sense most often used by journalists and high school sophomores.

cheers

horseback. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, horseback, in this case you are incorrect. It`s not about whether it`s a murder or not. It`s not about hyperboli or sensationalism. It is simply state-sanctioned assassination of a targeted subject. And I said before it does not necessarily have to be a political target, but a single target of someone deemed important. It`s a simple fact.

BigC208
08-08-2009, 12:07 PM
Not assassinated. Killed in a legitimate, well planned and executed operation. Now had the the US governement send an undercover sniper team to Tokyo and shot him while he was taking a stroll in a park, it would have been an assassination. The man was a soldier and died doing his job, inspecting the troops. Kudos for the intelligence people who got the info. If all wars could be fought like that there would be a lot less young people getting slaughtered. Kill all the Generals and we will be home in time for tea.

SeaFireLIV
08-08-2009, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigC208:
Not assassinated. Killed in a legitimate, well planned and executed operation. Now had the the US governement send an undercover sniper team to Tokyo and shot him while he was taking a stroll in a park, it would have been an assassination. The man was a soldier and died doing his job, inspecting the troops. Kudos for the intelligence people who got the info. If all wars could be fought like that there would be a lot less young people getting slaughtered. Kill all the Generals and we will be home in time for tea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sigh. If it is state sanctioned, it`s legitimate. I have highlighted the bits that are correct. The stroll in the park undercover bit doesn`t matter. That`s just drama.

It was an assassination, ok, executed in a manner with unusual tools in wartime, but still an assassination. no matter whatever else you want to call. But ok, whatever you want to believe.

And that`s my last on this as I can see this going round in circles.

X32Wright
08-08-2009, 11:06 PM
State sponsored killing is called 'capital punishment' not murder or homicide. In this case I won't call this as an assasination but rather 'war mission' or elimination or ambush.

Why? The guy planned Pearl Harbor and everything to do with Pearl Harbor attack!. He did oppose getting inot the war with the USA because he knew he Japan won't win and would 'wake up a sleeping giant' if they did. He also planned 'Midway'.

Anyhow, this was why he felt he had to attack Pearl Harbor and the Philippines the same day as well as Singapore and other allied controlled areas in Asia. He afterall studied at the Naval War College and Harvard and was a naval attache in Washington D.C.

He was the ultimate Japanese who understood America and American ideals so he was a big threat to the USA.

BSS_CUDA
08-09-2009, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as新as新i搖ate (?-s?s'?-n?t')
tr.v. as新as新i搖at搪d, as新as新i搖at搏ng, as新as新i搖ates

1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. a Murder is a planned killing. this was planned
2. it was a surprise attack
3. it was done for political AND Military reasons.

Websters says he was assassinated. discussion over

Phillip58
08-10-2009, 08:43 AM
Didn't the British SAS try to get Rommel many times in the desert? I find the point moot. It smacks of "revisionist" history again. He was military target. HOW they got him is beside the point.

Oh, thanks for dragging the memory of the pilots from BOTH sides who fought this battle through the dirt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif.

Phillip

BRASSTURTLE
08-10-2009, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phillip58:
Oh, thanks for dragging the memory of the pilots from BOTH sides who fought this battle through the dirt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif.

Phillip </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is dragging anyone or anything through the dirt. This has been the most civilized discussion of a historical event I have seen on this forum in months, if not years. No one has said the pilots who flew this mission did anything untoward. We all understand that war is hell & they were doing their duty as ordered.
This certainly is a moot point. Moot means open to discussion. Which is what we have been doing.

And by the way, ALL history is revisionist due to it's very nature. The more we learn, the more history gets revised.

Thanks to all who read my initial post and kept to the yeah or nay without straying into the right or wrong.

hathu2009
08-10-2009, 12:31 PM
A bomber in which a high-ranking general was travelling was shot down by enemy fighters in a war. Of course the fighters had been sent there to shoot the bomber down, but this does not make any difference.

When a soldier on a battlefield discovers a general of the enemy through the optic of his sniper gun and shoots him, is this called assassination? Clearly not. A military target of great value was hit in a war.

Art-J
08-10-2009, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hathu2009:
A bomber in which a high-ranking general was travelling was shot down by enemy fighters in a war. Of course the fighters had been sent there to shoot the bomber down, but this does not make any difference.

When a soldier on a battlefield discovers a general of the enemy through the optic of his sniper gun and shoots him, is this called assassination? Clearly not. A military target of great value was hit in a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but what if the soldier is sent precisely over there where the general is expected to be, and has direct order to find and get the guy. This is very different situation from accidental shooting you've described and this is the point of our discussion.

Cheers - Art

BillSwagger
08-10-2009, 01:06 PM
funny too, cause I built a mission on the same premise two months ago.

The idea was to intercept a convoy of high ranking JPN officials. There were 4 L2Ds, and 4 G2m4, escorted by a handful of zeros and some ki-84b.
The object was to shoot down the L2ds, before they got too close to their own base which was heavily fortified. If you followed too close it would basically mean taking on 20 ace pilots in superior aircraft.

Freiwillige
08-10-2009, 10:39 PM
This is what makes it an assassination.

The mission was coded TOP SECRET from Washington, Code breakers learned well in advance of Yamamoto's plans.

The P-38's took off 1/2 an hour before Yamamoto took off to inspect Rubaul.

The intercept point was so far out that it made the P-38's loiter time in target area at 10 minutes Max.

Extra capacity fuel tanks were ordered and delivered in advance of this mission.

The code breakers even knew that Yamamoto would be in a G4M Betty escorted by 6 Zero's.

Saburo_0
08-14-2009, 07:08 AM
1.He was a uniformed service member.
2.It seems to me the primary reason to get him was military, he was the Japanese Navy's most astute admiral.
3. His death was not expected to, nor did it lea to political change within Japan. (as Hitler's might have etc.)

Not assassinated IMHO.