Historical War Crimes and Modern Allegations

Axis Airmen and Shipwrecked Victims: Historical War Crimes and Modern Allegations

During World War II, a long‐standing code of air combat – that parachuting pilots and shipwrecked sailors be spared – was brutally violated by Axis forces. As Winston Churchill noted, shooting a parachuting pilot was “like drowning a sailor” en.wikipedia.org. Even Germany’s Luftwaffe formally forbade firing on parachuting enemies (General Adolf Galland said it would be “murder” to obey such an order en.wikipedia.org). In practice, however, Japanese pilots often flouted these rules. Allied veterans reported Japanese fighters machine‐gunning enemy airmen as they fell. For example, during the 1941 Malayan campaign and later Pacific battles, Japanese Zero fighters repeatedly shot at Allied bomber crews in their parachutes or strafed men in life rafts. One account from the Battle of the Bismarck Sea recalls that Zeros “machine-gunned some of the crew as they descended and attacked others in the water after they landed”en.wikipedia.org. In another case, a Japanese pilot in the Nanjing area reportedly waited until a downed Chinese pilot bailed out – only to attack him mid-descenten.wikipedia.org. These actions blatantly breached the Hague and Geneva conventions. Postwar tribunals treated such attacks on helpless men as war crimes, echoing the precept that “the killing of shipwrecked people…who have taken refuge in life‐boats is forbidden” justsecurity.org. (By contrast, while Allied airmen also faced fire in descents – some RAF pilots later admitted they sometimes collapsed a Luftwaffe pilot’s canopy to kill him en.wikipedia.org – the Axis powers’ leadership never codified such ruthlessness.)

U.S. Boat Strikes (Sept–Nov 2025)

Since September 2025, the U.S. has launched a series of strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific. On September 1–2, U.S. Navy units sank a Venezuelan “go-fast” boat alleged to be carrying narcotics, killing all 11 occupants en.wikipedia.orgtheguardian.com. President Trump heralded this as a success – “we literally shot out a drug-carrying boat” theguardian.com – and deployed additional warships and drone assets to the region en.wikipedia.orgreuters.com. In the following weeks, dozens more vessels were struck. By mid-November, about 21 attacks had occurred, killing roughly 80–83 people en.wikipedia.orgreuters.com. Most strikes involved aircraft and helicopters (MQ-9 Reaper drones, AC-130 gunships, UH-1Y helos, etc.); after one early hit disabled a boat, U.S. forces even returned to fire on survivors still clinging to debris, reportedly on orders to “leave no survivors” aljazeera.comen.wikipedia.org. Only two survivors of all the strikes have been documented – they were rescued, briefly detained on a U.S. warship, then repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador without charge reuters.comtheguardian.com.

The legal justification offered by U.S. officials is that the cartels constitute “narco-terrorists” engaged in an “armed conflict” with the U.S. However, critics sharply dispute this. An official Justice Department memo (the so-called “Bove Doctrine”) had even suggested months before the strikes that the government should simply “sink the boats” rather than make arrestsreuters.com. In practice, the strikes have followed that maxim. U.S. leaders have admitted seizing and searching the vessels was not done – for instance, Secretary Rubio acknowledged “instead of interdicting it… we blew it up” en.wikipedia.org. By late October, Pentagon figures showed “10 attacks… killing nearly 40 people” in just the Caribbean theaters reuters.com. Human rights groups and legal experts warn these killings are extrajudicial and unlawful. The UN human rights chief has called them “extrajudicial executions” theguardian.com. A Reuters analysis notes that “many outside experts… have said the extrajudicial killings amount to unlawful war crimes” reuters.com. Even U.S. lawmakers have pressed for proof these boats posed any imminent threat. In sum, the strikes bear the hallmarks of lethal “double-tap” attacks on a disabled vessel and its crew, a tactic long condemned by history.

History and Law: “No Shooting” Rule at Sea

By codifying the norms of warfare, history and international law make clear that attacking shipwrecked or parachuting personnel is strictly forbidden – in effect, a war crime. As the U.S. Law of War Manual succinctly puts it: “It is … prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten…the denial of quarter.”justsecurity.org. Likewise, the Manual explains that anyone “incapacitated by…shipwreck” is hors de combat – they are “in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack”justsecurity.org. These rules date back over a century. In 1921, a British tribunal (the Llandovery Castle case) convicted a German submarine captain for ordering the murder of lifeboat survivors, noting “in war at sea…the killing of shipwrecked people…is forbidden”justsecurity.org. There is no ambiguity: even amid intense combat, commanders and soldiers are expected to rescue or spare those floating in the water. To kill defenseless castaways – whether by shooting parachuting airmen or strafing men aboard a sinking boat – is universally held to breach the laws of armed conflictjustsecurity.orgjustsecurity.org.

In our era, U.S. military doctrine echoes this principle. The Naval War College’s manuals and the ICRC’s studies emphasize that persons shipwrecked or wounded at sea must be collected and cared forjustsecurity.org. Any order to “kill everybody” on a downed boat would be blatantly illegal, demanding refusal. As Michael Schmitt and colleagues summarize: “there is simply no plausible argument that the reported killing of two survivors clinging to the burning wreckage…could be justified.”justsecurity.org. History agrees. Firing on people clinging to a sinking vessel – like machine-gunning lifeboats in 1918 or modern “double-tap” strikes – has always been viewed as criminal. In Churchill’s words, even at war one must not “drown [a parachuting pilot] like a swimmer”en.wikipedia.org. To paraphrase: history says it’s a war crime to fire on a sinking boat.

Sources: Historical examples and laws are detailed in military archives and expert analysesen.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org justsecurity.org justsecurity.org. Current incidents are reported by Reuters, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc.en.wikipedia.org aljazeera.com reuters.com theguardian.com. All cited sources are linked in the text above.