P.O.W illegaly executed

[Pint 23]

This story is curently doing the rounds in the U.K at the moment:

 

"Boy Scout founder Lord Baden-Powell 'executed PoW' "

 

this dates back to 1896, and it basicly says that Baden-Powel ordered the execution of a captured African cheif, despite a promise being made to him that his life would be spared if he surendered.

 

full story here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/8403956.stm

 

[evmori 11]

So? What's your point?

[SctDad 10]

I guess BP's Commander did not get the tweet soon enough.

 

I do not see where this matters. The Hague Convention did not have rules of land warfare drafted until 1899 and finally approved in 1900. The Geneva Convention was in 1929, although there was a Geneva protocol in 1925.

 

Desperate times call for desperate measures. There may have been something that BP saw that could not be relayed to Command fast enough.

 

And as evmori said, "What's your point?"

[Eagle92 110]

A few comments,

 

1) as had been stated no Geneva back then, and I don't know British military procedures of the time.

 

2) He was exoneratedof any wrongdoing.

 

3)Unfortunately the documents are not posted for review.

 

4) I see this as sensationalism.

[Oak Tree 15]

Geez, you guys are sure quick to jump on Pint. I'm glad he posted the story - it's a reasonable thing to call to the attention of the forum. Why does he have to have a point? My assumption was that his point was "Here's a story that you all may find interesting."

[Eagle92 110]

Oak,

If it seems like I'm jumping on Pint, I apologize as that was not my intetion. Pint is a good bloke, with lots of good info on the happenings on the other side of the pond. And I love the handle as he reminds me of my time at Kingsdown and the activities the service team had at the Kings' Head

 

Rather my commentary is based on the newspaper that published the article. They left out a good bit of info, never quote from the documents, and it appears very much innuendo in referecne to school ties commentary.

[BadenP 93]

British commanders in those days were ruthless, heartless, and really did not care about the indigenous folk of the countries they had conquered. One reason for this the Empire expected them to act this way as the British army were vastly outnumbered and force and fear was the only way to keep the conquered in line. This strategy however led to the eventual downfall of their Empire and Britian becoming the most hated country in the third world countries for many years after.

 

BP was nothing more than a product of his time following the orders of a country who wanted to build the largest Empire in the world and using any means in accomplishing that goal, usually at the expense of the people already inhabiting those countries.

[John-in-KC 311]

So What? Who Cares?

 

I certainly do not. EagleSon, in the 7th grade, took my Dad's oral history as part of a unit on the Holocaust. Dad told my son about the atrocities the Japs committed regularly on their prisoners of war.

 

I cannot remember where ... there is a note passed between the US and Jap embassies in Switzerland in early 1942, discussing handling of prisoners of war. Japs said they were not signatories to the conventions and did not intend to honor them is the short version.

 

I suspect B-Ps prisoner was executed far more humanely than some of the literal decimations observed by my Dad ... including decapitations by the Japs of American prisoners.

 

War? Civilized? It was a fantasy hundreds of years ago, when a wound was generally as good as a kill (the poor sonofa##### was probably going to lose a limb to gangrene if not his life to same), it's a fantasy now. As Sherman said, "It is all Hell." Sadly, the state of this world means there are miscreants for whom the State using the last arguement of kings is the only way out.

 

 

 

I'm with SctDad, E92 (especially his last point), and Ed.

[Pint 23]

I posted the story, to see what other peoples opinions would be.

When you first read it, it comes across as shock horror Scouting founder ilegaly executes captured prisoner of war despite promising him that he would spare him his life, despite the fact that Scouting ( rightly) aims to instill certain morals and standards in young people ( and to a lesser degree adults) to enable those people to become better citizens.

 

The news media loves negative stories, and this is yet another example. Read it through once and its easy to come up with the "shock horror" opinion, however read it through carefuly, and look at the date, 1896.

(One of the earliest Scouting books was first published in 1899, that being Aids to Scouting for NCOs and men)

Also if you read it through carefuly BP ordered the execution, but didnt (apparently) carry out the act.

so thats that little presumption cleared up.

1896 was a long long time ago ( obviously) and we would find most poeples views from that time morraly repugnant. Sitting at home its easy to apply todays standards to the past, especialy when it invovles figures who we put on a pedastal ( such as BP) and be shocked when we find out something that may not sit too well with our idealised image of that person.

This also happened during conflict, and with conflict comes cruelty. its nigh on impossible to understand the stresses asocoitated with conflict, and then to understand an individuals actions taken as a result of being under such conditions.

 

Maybe this incident was one of the things that led upto Scouting as a worldwide movement bringing young people together helping to create a better world.

 

With all the above in mind its yet another negative media story on Scouting, and in the world of the media the negative Scouting stuff far outweighs the amount of positve Scouting stuff that gets published.

 

 

[SSScout 1616]

Pint: Thank you for the clarification. I could imagine something like this helping BP to gel his ideas about war, trust, honor, and dare I say, the brotherhood inherent in humankind.

 

Many warriors have had their own epiphany. Look up Smedley Butler for some interesting reading. Twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and then wrote a book entitled "War is a Racket" .

 

YiS

 

[BDPT00 41]

John/KC,

I find your term for the Japanese to be totally outdated and derogatory. I hope you don't share that language with your Scouts.

BDPT00

 

[Lone-Scout 10]

"I find your term for the Japanese to be totally outdated and derogatory. I hope you don't share that language with your Scouts."

 

Need a tissue?

[Eagle92 110]

BD,

FYI in grad school one of my peers did some research at the national archives and found documents referencing the Japanese as "Nips." Prof said to use either either Japanese or Japs as Nips was offensive. Freind had to explain that he was quoting from a letter from then Admiral Nimitz, CinCPac for the conversation.

 

EDITED: not trying to sound unscoutlike, but trying to show that it is acceptable similar to Aussies for Australians, Kiwis for New Zealanders, Brits for Brtitish and of course Yanks for Americans (although in my part of the woods calling someone a YANK is fighting words )(This message has been edited by eagle92)

[BadenP 93]

I don't know where you are coming from Eagle, I have British , Australian And NZ friends who dont mind at all being called Brits, Aussies and Kiwis,these were meant as terms of friendship and comraderie, and I am not at all offended when they say u yanks referring to Americans. Terms like nip and jap were coined during WWII to help demonize the Japanese people since we were at war with them, just like some today call all Muslims towelheads and worse to demean them. Eagle you need to brush up on your history, your professor was very correct. Calling a Japanese person a nip is like calling an Italian a dago or a Polish person a pollock or a German a kraut, all of these are considered very offensive terms.

 

I am really surprised by your lack of understanding of what is so blantantly obvious.

[vol_scouter 365]

So Dai Nippon means great Japan. In many ways, that term is similar to Brits, Kiwis, and Yanks. I believe that the context of the term determines whether it is offensive or not. Certainly, if the term is used in describing Japanese soldiers from WWII, it would be in keeping with the terms used by allied forces and is not necessarily derogatory to current Japanese. It could be offensive if referring to a Japanese citizen of today. Having read several books dealing with the Japanese treatment of POWs, the term Nip is being kind to the inhuman treatment of the POWs. There can be no defense of the widespread horrible treatment of POWs that was fine with the Japanese high command. So if the discussion is about WWII POWs, Nip is not only OK but appropriate.