What are you saying here? Are you saying that Forrest shot those men because they were trying to escape? If that's the case, then perhaps Forrest can be given a pass.
As you said, it is war. And war is a nasty and brutish business. But then you must also give a pass to the U-boat commanders who machine-gunned lifeboats.
But if Forrest shot those men because they had refused to surrender, then, genius or not, Forrest is a monster and a war criminal.
A warning of "no quarter" is not good enough. In fact, it is a pathetic excuse. Would it have been acceptable for the Germans to murder the Malmedy prisoners if only the Germans had announced no quarter ahead of time?
It is honorable to refuse to surrender, and to fight for your country. It is not honorable to shoot unarmed men.
But in doing so you accept the possibility that you will be killed, which is what happened.
And the repeated offer of surrender is not just nothing. It changes the moral logic. Did the Germans who machine gunned the lifeboats offer the possibility of surrender first? I'll bet not. Therefore Forrest is not like the Germans.
And unlike Malmedy it wasn't a case of slaughtering prisoners.
So I guess I'm not sure you have a point.
--Hobbs
Depends upon the situation.
If the men being captured are criminal minded and refuse to change their thinking, after proper judicial proceedings they may be handled by deadly force.
“It is not honorable to shoot unarmed men.”
When you’ve spent days wading through bloody mud and watched your friends writhing in pain, eventually to be claimed by the relative peace of death, “honor” is less important than when sitting at a keyboard on Monday morning.