War Crimes at Sea: A Personal and Historical Perspective

In recent days I've been remembering my Uncle Al. News reports about bombings in the Caribbean brought those memories back.

When I was very young Uncle Al would visit my family. I thought he was scary, because his gaze was fixed and his physical presentation stiff, almost wooden. The trip from Brooklyn to our house in the country was arduous. It required several train transfers and a taxi ride. Uncle Al liked to stay overnight when he came, but there was nowhere for him to sleep. That's why he bought a rollout couch. That couch stayed long after his visits stopped and became the most valuable piece of furniture we owned.

Years later, after my family moved to Brooklyn, I learned about Uncle Al's history, about why he lived alone and why, from time to time, he would take up residence at the local VA hospital. I could see that hospital from 14th Avenue, in Brooklyn. It was a large concrete structure that loomed on the other side of the Dyker Heights Golf Course.

_{This VA hospital is in Manahattan. There are four other major VA medical centers in NYC. Uncle Al's was in Brooklyn, which was near his family. Picture credit Eden, Janine, Jim. Used under CC 2.0 license}

My cousin Jo told me Uncle Al's story.

Uncle Al had fought in WWII. When the war was almost over--1945--he was captured and was transported on a prison ship. The ship never made it to port, but was bombed in an Allied air assault...friendly fire for my uncle. The ship sank. When Uncle Al was rescued he was found under a pile of corpses.

_{In 1945, as WWII was coming to a close, the Allies conducted an air raid in the Bay of Luebek. Three German ships were sunk in that raid. The Allies thought they were bombing troop carriers. What they bombed was prison ships. On board were mostly prisoners from concentration camps, but also prisoners of war. Was my uncle on one of these ships? I don't know, but perhaps that helps to explain the traumatic state in which he was found when ultimately rescued. The three ships that sank were the Thielbeck, the Cap Arcona,and the Athen--although the Athen experienced less damage than the other two ships. It is estimated that 7,000 prisoners lost their lives in this attack. Image credit: From page 188 of Die Cap Arcona Katastrophe, Eine Dokumentation nach Augenzeugen Berichten by Heinz Schön, Public Domain}

After his rescue Uncle Al was not coherent. He spent years at the VA, under its care. After that he was informally a ward of his brother, my Uncle Jimmy, who saw that Uncle Al had a decent apartment and whatever else he needed. Periodically, Uncle Al would go back to the VA. I think he considered the hospital to be his true home.

Uncle Al died many years ago, but of course he is on my mind from time to time. That is especially true this week. I think of him in that ship, sinking in the water.

When Uncle Al was captured by the enemy, he wasn't killed. He was made a prisoner. When the ship that carried him sank, he wasn't slaughtered in the sea, but was rescued and identified.

What are the rules of war with regard to enemy combatants who are stranded at sea, and what have these rules been through history? I did a little reading.

Until the first Geneva Convention of 1864, there were no codified rules of war.

Some armies in history that come to mind were notoriously ruthless. The Mongols, led by Genghis Khan, for example, showed no mercy to those who did not bend and even to those who did bend. It is said that when Genghis Khan's son succeeded him there was a plan to slaughter everyone in northern China, and turn the land into pasture. A wise counselor suggested it would be more profitable to let the people live, and tax them.

_{Mongols attacking Northern China, 1211. Picture credit:Sayf al-Vâhidî. Hérât. Afghanistan (1430). Public domain}

Then there were the Assyrians, who were known through the ancient world for their vicious treatment of conquered peoples. I won't detail their gruesome torture techniques. You can read about them here. According to that referenced website, the Assyrian army intimidated their enemies by inflicting great suffering on conquered lands. Only individuals with special skills and abilities were spared. The rest were put to death, often in very gruesome ways.

However, even in the ancient world there were (instances) of rules for relatively humane warfare. In fifth-century Greece, for example, Euripides and Thucydides wrote about common customs of war that included:

• Prisoners of war should be offered for ransom rather than being
  summarily executed or mutilated.
• Punishment of surrendered opponents should be restrained.
• War is an affair of warriors, thus noncombatants should not be
  primary targets of attack.

Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War and general in Ancient China wrote: "..in war one should only attack the enemy armies, for "the worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative."

In the Islamic world it was written,The prisoner of war should not be killed,but he may be ransomed or set free by grace. However, if it was considered that his death would be advantageous to the Muslims, he might be killed,unless he converted to Islam.

So throughout history different cultures have held different ideas of how war should be fought. But what about today?

The first Geneva Convention in 1864 was followed by others, the last one in 1949. Since then there have been modifications that are binding on the Convention's signatories, except for one or two exceptions. The 1949 Convention incorporates provisions in previous conventions and expands them. It is the 1949 Convention that is most relevant to Uncle Al's story, and to the recent bombings in the Caribbean.

The summary I offer below of 1949 Convention provisions is not exhaustive. I searched around for those items that had bearing on my inquiry about recent events in the Caribbean, and about Uncle Al's treatment.

The 1949 Convention (146 countries around the globe, including the U.S., ratified the Convention) has specific terms that refer to warfare at sea. The following are quotes from the document that describes the Convention's provisions.

• To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
  and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

• The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be collected and cared for.

• Violations of these obligations can amount to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions when committed in the context of an international armed conflict. They are punished as war crimes in both international and non-international armed conflict.

• Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following
  Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term “shipwreck” means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

• After each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all
  possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and
  sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead.

• Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is: (b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness;

The Convention requires signatories to follow these provisions even if the other combatant is not a signatory.

I heard a commentator on TV state that after WWII Japanese commanders were tracked, tried and executed for killing shipwrecked sailors/passengers. I couldn't find that citation, but I did find instances killing victims of a shipwreck.

_{Japanese War Crime trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita in 1945. With his conviction "the Yamashita Standard was established:the responsibility of commanders for war crimes". Image credit: U.S. Department of Defense. Unknown Author. Public domain}

Japanese Rear Admiral Takero Kouta was guilty of killing survivors at sea a number of times. Here are some of his offenses:

.- (he)in­structed naval per­son­nel to not only sink enemy ships and cargoes but to com­pletely elimi­nate any sur­vi­vors.

• ordered his I-177 to sink the Aus­tra­lian hos­pital ship Cen­taur
• sank the tanker Brit­ish Chiv­alry after it had departed from Mel­bourne in Febru­ary 1944, machine-gunning 39 out of 59 crew­men in life­boats
• or­dered his crew to open fire on the sur­vivors of the 5,189‑ton British armed ves­sel Sutlej

While Takero Kouta goes down in the history books as a war criminal, I can't find out if he was ever punished or if he even survived the war.

One example of a war crime involving murder of shipwreck survivors is known as the Laconia order and did result in a death sentence for some who were convicted. This incident involves German forces, and the trial did end with death sentences for some involved, as described below:

Ambiguously worded, the order could be interpreted as a directive to German U-boat crews to murder the survivors of Allied vessels whose ships had been sunk in combat...one man who had seemingly acted upon (the ambiguously worded order), Submarine Kapitänleutnant Heinz Eck, admitted his role in the 1944 murder of survivors from a Greek steamer named the Peleus, but denied flatly that he was acting under anyone‟s orders other than his own. Convicted before a British military tribunal in 1945, Eck was given the death sentence along with two other members of the crew

This instance suggests that those at the end of the command structure, those who do the actual killings, are most likely to be held accountable. Vaguely worded orders from the top may allow those in charge to escape responsibility.

---

Conclusion
There is a lot of talk, a lot of conjecture about the legality of the recent U.S bombings in the Caribbean, especially one bombing that occurred on September 2, 2025. Talk has become most intense in recent days with the verified report of a 'double tap' on that day--a second strike on a destroyed boat to kill survivors.

I didn't want to engage in conjecture when I wrote this blog. As is my custom, I turned to history for instruction. It seems clear, from the record, and from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, that a 'double tap', to kill survivors, is illegal. It is, and historically has been, characterized as a war crime.

I do not charge anyone involved with the September 2 bombing with this crime. I do ask readers to look at the record and at the facts and to come to an unavoidable judgement about what happened in the Caribbean on September 2, 2025.

I think it is obvious that the bombings in the Caribbean, especially those that deliberately target wounded and stranded, are in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention. Do these actions constitute war crimes? I'm not a lawyer, but as a non-lawyer, I think this is a reasonable question.