Operation Vengeance and Individual Targeting of Enemy Commanders












25















Operation Vengeance (1943) was a US military operation aimed specifically to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto.



It looks like something weird in contemporary era: are there any similar military operations (conducted by regular military services, I mean) which were uniquely targeting a single enemy commander (of a internationally recognized country) in the last century, or in present day warfare, furthermore?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    I guess that an operation done by spies does not count in your question.

    – Santiago
    Feb 6 at 12:46











  • You’re definitely right. I’m talking about regular service members chasing one specific enemy leader of an official military force.

    – Filippof
    Feb 6 at 13:40






  • 7





    Can you clarify what you mean by “commander”, please? If you’re talking about targeting any particular officer, that happens all the time, and is mundane enough that it typically doesn’t rise to the level of named operation. (Think about sniper teams commonly being dispatched to kill an opposing officer or field commander, or even those playing cards that got handed to US troops out for top-level Iraqi officials and officers during Gulf War II). Or are you talking about top-level military force commanders, only? (Yamato being the commander-in-chief of Japanese combined fleet.)

    – HopelessN00b
    Feb 6 at 17:42






  • 6





    I recall that there were plans discussed to arrange the assassination of Hitler, but there were concerns that he'd be replaced by someone with a level of strategic competence, so it was decided to let the German war effort continue to be led by an unstable egomaniac. Not killing him probably saved many lives.

    – Snow
    Feb 7 at 10:30






  • 2





    @HopelessNoob, please differentiate between Yamato and Yamamoto. 😉

    – Ajagar
    Feb 7 at 23:11
















25















Operation Vengeance (1943) was a US military operation aimed specifically to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto.



It looks like something weird in contemporary era: are there any similar military operations (conducted by regular military services, I mean) which were uniquely targeting a single enemy commander (of a internationally recognized country) in the last century, or in present day warfare, furthermore?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    I guess that an operation done by spies does not count in your question.

    – Santiago
    Feb 6 at 12:46











  • You’re definitely right. I’m talking about regular service members chasing one specific enemy leader of an official military force.

    – Filippof
    Feb 6 at 13:40






  • 7





    Can you clarify what you mean by “commander”, please? If you’re talking about targeting any particular officer, that happens all the time, and is mundane enough that it typically doesn’t rise to the level of named operation. (Think about sniper teams commonly being dispatched to kill an opposing officer or field commander, or even those playing cards that got handed to US troops out for top-level Iraqi officials and officers during Gulf War II). Or are you talking about top-level military force commanders, only? (Yamato being the commander-in-chief of Japanese combined fleet.)

    – HopelessN00b
    Feb 6 at 17:42






  • 6





    I recall that there were plans discussed to arrange the assassination of Hitler, but there were concerns that he'd be replaced by someone with a level of strategic competence, so it was decided to let the German war effort continue to be led by an unstable egomaniac. Not killing him probably saved many lives.

    – Snow
    Feb 7 at 10:30






  • 2





    @HopelessNoob, please differentiate between Yamato and Yamamoto. 😉

    – Ajagar
    Feb 7 at 23:11














25












25








25


2






Operation Vengeance (1943) was a US military operation aimed specifically to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto.



It looks like something weird in contemporary era: are there any similar military operations (conducted by regular military services, I mean) which were uniquely targeting a single enemy commander (of a internationally recognized country) in the last century, or in present day warfare, furthermore?










share|improve this question
















Operation Vengeance (1943) was a US military operation aimed specifically to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto.



It looks like something weird in contemporary era: are there any similar military operations (conducted by regular military services, I mean) which were uniquely targeting a single enemy commander (of a internationally recognized country) in the last century, or in present day warfare, furthermore?







world-war-two military 20th-century






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 6 at 13:50







Filippof

















asked Feb 6 at 9:51









FilippofFilippof

411411




411411








  • 1





    I guess that an operation done by spies does not count in your question.

    – Santiago
    Feb 6 at 12:46











  • You’re definitely right. I’m talking about regular service members chasing one specific enemy leader of an official military force.

    – Filippof
    Feb 6 at 13:40






  • 7





    Can you clarify what you mean by “commander”, please? If you’re talking about targeting any particular officer, that happens all the time, and is mundane enough that it typically doesn’t rise to the level of named operation. (Think about sniper teams commonly being dispatched to kill an opposing officer or field commander, or even those playing cards that got handed to US troops out for top-level Iraqi officials and officers during Gulf War II). Or are you talking about top-level military force commanders, only? (Yamato being the commander-in-chief of Japanese combined fleet.)

    – HopelessN00b
    Feb 6 at 17:42






  • 6





    I recall that there were plans discussed to arrange the assassination of Hitler, but there were concerns that he'd be replaced by someone with a level of strategic competence, so it was decided to let the German war effort continue to be led by an unstable egomaniac. Not killing him probably saved many lives.

    – Snow
    Feb 7 at 10:30






  • 2





    @HopelessNoob, please differentiate between Yamato and Yamamoto. 😉

    – Ajagar
    Feb 7 at 23:11














  • 1





    I guess that an operation done by spies does not count in your question.

    – Santiago
    Feb 6 at 12:46











  • You’re definitely right. I’m talking about regular service members chasing one specific enemy leader of an official military force.

    – Filippof
    Feb 6 at 13:40






  • 7





    Can you clarify what you mean by “commander”, please? If you’re talking about targeting any particular officer, that happens all the time, and is mundane enough that it typically doesn’t rise to the level of named operation. (Think about sniper teams commonly being dispatched to kill an opposing officer or field commander, or even those playing cards that got handed to US troops out for top-level Iraqi officials and officers during Gulf War II). Or are you talking about top-level military force commanders, only? (Yamato being the commander-in-chief of Japanese combined fleet.)

    – HopelessN00b
    Feb 6 at 17:42






  • 6





    I recall that there were plans discussed to arrange the assassination of Hitler, but there were concerns that he'd be replaced by someone with a level of strategic competence, so it was decided to let the German war effort continue to be led by an unstable egomaniac. Not killing him probably saved many lives.

    – Snow
    Feb 7 at 10:30






  • 2





    @HopelessNoob, please differentiate between Yamato and Yamamoto. 😉

    – Ajagar
    Feb 7 at 23:11








1




1





I guess that an operation done by spies does not count in your question.

– Santiago
Feb 6 at 12:46





I guess that an operation done by spies does not count in your question.

– Santiago
Feb 6 at 12:46













You’re definitely right. I’m talking about regular service members chasing one specific enemy leader of an official military force.

– Filippof
Feb 6 at 13:40





You’re definitely right. I’m talking about regular service members chasing one specific enemy leader of an official military force.

– Filippof
Feb 6 at 13:40




7




7





Can you clarify what you mean by “commander”, please? If you’re talking about targeting any particular officer, that happens all the time, and is mundane enough that it typically doesn’t rise to the level of named operation. (Think about sniper teams commonly being dispatched to kill an opposing officer or field commander, or even those playing cards that got handed to US troops out for top-level Iraqi officials and officers during Gulf War II). Or are you talking about top-level military force commanders, only? (Yamato being the commander-in-chief of Japanese combined fleet.)

– HopelessN00b
Feb 6 at 17:42





Can you clarify what you mean by “commander”, please? If you’re talking about targeting any particular officer, that happens all the time, and is mundane enough that it typically doesn’t rise to the level of named operation. (Think about sniper teams commonly being dispatched to kill an opposing officer or field commander, or even those playing cards that got handed to US troops out for top-level Iraqi officials and officers during Gulf War II). Or are you talking about top-level military force commanders, only? (Yamato being the commander-in-chief of Japanese combined fleet.)

– HopelessN00b
Feb 6 at 17:42




6




6





I recall that there were plans discussed to arrange the assassination of Hitler, but there were concerns that he'd be replaced by someone with a level of strategic competence, so it was decided to let the German war effort continue to be led by an unstable egomaniac. Not killing him probably saved many lives.

– Snow
Feb 7 at 10:30





I recall that there were plans discussed to arrange the assassination of Hitler, but there were concerns that he'd be replaced by someone with a level of strategic competence, so it was decided to let the German war effort continue to be led by an unstable egomaniac. Not killing him probably saved many lives.

– Snow
Feb 7 at 10:30




2




2





@HopelessNoob, please differentiate between Yamato and Yamamoto. 😉

– Ajagar
Feb 7 at 23:11





@HopelessNoob, please differentiate between Yamato and Yamamoto. 😉

– Ajagar
Feb 7 at 23:11










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















31














Operation Flipper, in November 1941 was a British special forces operation aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel.



The intention was to disrupt the German Command and Control infrastructure before the start of Operation Crusader, which was intended to relieve the siege of Tobruk. It was felt that Rommel was such a pivotal figure for the German army in North Africa that his death might sway the result.





The operation failed, because Rommel had left for Rome ahead of the attack (almost half the attacking force were unable to get ashore due to bad weather which meant that the other mission objectives were also not achieved).



Lt. Colonel Laycock's report on the raid, dated 5 January 1942, can be read at the UK National Archives (reference WO 201/720)





EDIT:



As a side-note in regard to Operation Vengeance, I found two papers that you might find interesting



The first of these is the 2015 monograph Killing a Peacock: A Case Study of the Targeted Killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, by Maj Adonis C. Arvanitakis, United States Air Force, submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, which looks at the planning and execution of the operation in some detail.



The second paper is the 1992 thesis Bullets With Names: The Deadly Dilemma by Roger G. Herbert, Jr., Lieutenant, United States Navy, which considers Operation Vengeance in the wider context of targeted assassinations from the perspective of the United States.






share|improve this answer

































    21














    The operation to kill Bin Laden (2011)



    Yes, in recent memory the US Millitary started an operation specifically to take out Osama Bin Laden (it happened in 2011):



    "The Associated Press reported at the time two U.S. officials as stating the operation was "a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender", but that "it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering""



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear






    share|improve this answer





















    • 2





      OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

      – Filippof
      Feb 6 at 10:10






    • 9





      According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

      – Josh
      Feb 6 at 10:15






    • 7





      Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

      – Filippof
      Feb 6 at 10:17






    • 4





      True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

      – Josh
      Feb 6 at 10:20






    • 2





      We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

      – Michael W.
      Feb 7 at 19:06



















    20














    Attempt to kill or capture Tito



    Operation Rösselsprung was a failed attempt by the Germans to capture or kill Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia on the 25th of May, 1944.



    The attempt to kill or capture Tito was led by Kurt Rybka with 500th SS Parachute Battalion. Tito, however, escaped from his cave headquarters after the German's first assault had failed. The only part of Tito they ended up capturing was his uniform...



    enter image description here



    "Tito with members of the Supreme Staff in front of the cave in Drvar , May 1944." This photo was presumably taken not long before the German assault. Source: Wikipedia



    Initially involved in the attempt was Otto Skorzeny, perhaps best known for his key role in the rescue of Mussolini in Operation Eiche in September 1943. Skorzeny's plan, though, was compromised and had no further part in the events which followed.





    Capture of Admiral Horthy, regent of Hungary



    Perhaps a marginal case is that of the October 1944 Operation Panzerfaust, the successful capture of the Hungarian regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, which also involved Skorzeny.



    In 1920, Horthy had originally accepted the regency on the condition that he was also commander of the armed forces, but I can find little evidence as to what extent he was involved land-based operations. He did, however, continue to wear a uniform.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

      – Filippof
      Feb 6 at 13:04






    • 1





      I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

      – Filippof
      Feb 6 at 13:38






    • 1





      Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

      – Filippof
      Feb 6 at 14:17






    • 3





      @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

      – sempaiscuba
      Feb 6 at 16:58






    • 1





      @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

      – Filippof
      Feb 6 at 17:19



















    6














    The United States opened the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an attempted Decapitation Strike against Saddam Hussein.






    share|improve this answer
























    • I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

      – Filippof
      Feb 7 at 11:15



















    5














    I just learned that Operation Gaff (1944) was another such attempt of taking out the “usual” Erwin Rommel.






    share|improve this answer

































      5














      The abduction of German General Kreipe on Crete in 1944 (documented in the book and movie Ill Met by Moonlight might be one, although the intent was not to kill. The general was captured and smuggled off of Crete as a prisoner of war.






      share|improve this answer
























      • Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

        – Filippof
        Feb 6 at 14:39



















      4














      The Polish Home Army (a military force still subservient to the Polish Government in Exile), had operations that took out various police and military officials - and even attempted to kill Hitler, although the operation failed.



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Assassinations_of_Nazi_leaders






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

        – Filippof
        Feb 7 at 19:15






      • 2





        Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

        – don bright
        Feb 8 at 2:06













      • @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

        – Filippof
        Feb 8 at 6:18











      • well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

        – don bright
        Feb 9 at 4:56











      • @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

        – Filippof
        Feb 9 at 8:10



















      3














      If we count the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942—1949 span of activity) (they had between 20.000 and 200.000 fighters) as a regular army. They actually killed many soviet officials, either from the army or the NKVD. Their more important kill was Nikolai Vatutin, commander of the 1st Ukranian Front during WWII.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

        – Filippof
        Feb 6 at 15:45













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "324"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50989%2foperation-vengeance-and-individual-targeting-of-enemy-commanders%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      8 Answers
      8






      active

      oldest

      votes








      8 Answers
      8






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      31














      Operation Flipper, in November 1941 was a British special forces operation aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel.



      The intention was to disrupt the German Command and Control infrastructure before the start of Operation Crusader, which was intended to relieve the siege of Tobruk. It was felt that Rommel was such a pivotal figure for the German army in North Africa that his death might sway the result.





      The operation failed, because Rommel had left for Rome ahead of the attack (almost half the attacking force were unable to get ashore due to bad weather which meant that the other mission objectives were also not achieved).



      Lt. Colonel Laycock's report on the raid, dated 5 January 1942, can be read at the UK National Archives (reference WO 201/720)





      EDIT:



      As a side-note in regard to Operation Vengeance, I found two papers that you might find interesting



      The first of these is the 2015 monograph Killing a Peacock: A Case Study of the Targeted Killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, by Maj Adonis C. Arvanitakis, United States Air Force, submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, which looks at the planning and execution of the operation in some detail.



      The second paper is the 1992 thesis Bullets With Names: The Deadly Dilemma by Roger G. Herbert, Jr., Lieutenant, United States Navy, which considers Operation Vengeance in the wider context of targeted assassinations from the perspective of the United States.






      share|improve this answer






























        31














        Operation Flipper, in November 1941 was a British special forces operation aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel.



        The intention was to disrupt the German Command and Control infrastructure before the start of Operation Crusader, which was intended to relieve the siege of Tobruk. It was felt that Rommel was such a pivotal figure for the German army in North Africa that his death might sway the result.





        The operation failed, because Rommel had left for Rome ahead of the attack (almost half the attacking force were unable to get ashore due to bad weather which meant that the other mission objectives were also not achieved).



        Lt. Colonel Laycock's report on the raid, dated 5 January 1942, can be read at the UK National Archives (reference WO 201/720)





        EDIT:



        As a side-note in regard to Operation Vengeance, I found two papers that you might find interesting



        The first of these is the 2015 monograph Killing a Peacock: A Case Study of the Targeted Killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, by Maj Adonis C. Arvanitakis, United States Air Force, submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, which looks at the planning and execution of the operation in some detail.



        The second paper is the 1992 thesis Bullets With Names: The Deadly Dilemma by Roger G. Herbert, Jr., Lieutenant, United States Navy, which considers Operation Vengeance in the wider context of targeted assassinations from the perspective of the United States.






        share|improve this answer




























          31












          31








          31







          Operation Flipper, in November 1941 was a British special forces operation aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel.



          The intention was to disrupt the German Command and Control infrastructure before the start of Operation Crusader, which was intended to relieve the siege of Tobruk. It was felt that Rommel was such a pivotal figure for the German army in North Africa that his death might sway the result.





          The operation failed, because Rommel had left for Rome ahead of the attack (almost half the attacking force were unable to get ashore due to bad weather which meant that the other mission objectives were also not achieved).



          Lt. Colonel Laycock's report on the raid, dated 5 January 1942, can be read at the UK National Archives (reference WO 201/720)





          EDIT:



          As a side-note in regard to Operation Vengeance, I found two papers that you might find interesting



          The first of these is the 2015 monograph Killing a Peacock: A Case Study of the Targeted Killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, by Maj Adonis C. Arvanitakis, United States Air Force, submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, which looks at the planning and execution of the operation in some detail.



          The second paper is the 1992 thesis Bullets With Names: The Deadly Dilemma by Roger G. Herbert, Jr., Lieutenant, United States Navy, which considers Operation Vengeance in the wider context of targeted assassinations from the perspective of the United States.






          share|improve this answer















          Operation Flipper, in November 1941 was a British special forces operation aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel.



          The intention was to disrupt the German Command and Control infrastructure before the start of Operation Crusader, which was intended to relieve the siege of Tobruk. It was felt that Rommel was such a pivotal figure for the German army in North Africa that his death might sway the result.





          The operation failed, because Rommel had left for Rome ahead of the attack (almost half the attacking force were unable to get ashore due to bad weather which meant that the other mission objectives were also not achieved).



          Lt. Colonel Laycock's report on the raid, dated 5 January 1942, can be read at the UK National Archives (reference WO 201/720)





          EDIT:



          As a side-note in regard to Operation Vengeance, I found two papers that you might find interesting



          The first of these is the 2015 monograph Killing a Peacock: A Case Study of the Targeted Killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, by Maj Adonis C. Arvanitakis, United States Air Force, submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, which looks at the planning and execution of the operation in some detail.



          The second paper is the 1992 thesis Bullets With Names: The Deadly Dilemma by Roger G. Herbert, Jr., Lieutenant, United States Navy, which considers Operation Vengeance in the wider context of targeted assassinations from the perspective of the United States.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Feb 7 at 20:39

























          answered Feb 6 at 10:33









          sempaiscubasempaiscuba

          49.9k6172219




          49.9k6172219























              21














              The operation to kill Bin Laden (2011)



              Yes, in recent memory the US Millitary started an operation specifically to take out Osama Bin Laden (it happened in 2011):



              "The Associated Press reported at the time two U.S. officials as stating the operation was "a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender", but that "it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering""



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear






              share|improve this answer





















              • 2





                OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:10






              • 9





                According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:15






              • 7





                Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:17






              • 4





                True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:20






              • 2





                We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

                – Michael W.
                Feb 7 at 19:06
















              21














              The operation to kill Bin Laden (2011)



              Yes, in recent memory the US Millitary started an operation specifically to take out Osama Bin Laden (it happened in 2011):



              "The Associated Press reported at the time two U.S. officials as stating the operation was "a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender", but that "it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering""



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear






              share|improve this answer





















              • 2





                OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:10






              • 9





                According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:15






              • 7





                Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:17






              • 4





                True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:20






              • 2





                We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

                – Michael W.
                Feb 7 at 19:06














              21












              21








              21







              The operation to kill Bin Laden (2011)



              Yes, in recent memory the US Millitary started an operation specifically to take out Osama Bin Laden (it happened in 2011):



              "The Associated Press reported at the time two U.S. officials as stating the operation was "a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender", but that "it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering""



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear






              share|improve this answer















              The operation to kill Bin Laden (2011)



              Yes, in recent memory the US Millitary started an operation specifically to take out Osama Bin Laden (it happened in 2011):



              "The Associated Press reported at the time two U.S. officials as stating the operation was "a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender", but that "it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering""



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Feb 6 at 14:22









              Filippof

              411411




              411411










              answered Feb 6 at 10:04









              JoshJosh

              31916




              31916








              • 2





                OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:10






              • 9





                According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:15






              • 7





                Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:17






              • 4





                True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:20






              • 2





                We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

                – Michael W.
                Feb 7 at 19:06














              • 2





                OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:10






              • 9





                According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:15






              • 7





                Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 10:17






              • 4





                True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

                – Josh
                Feb 6 at 10:20






              • 2





                We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

                – Michael W.
                Feb 7 at 19:06








              2




              2





              OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 10:10





              OK, you’re right, though Osama bin Laden was not, technically, an enemy commander, but maybe kinda terror mastermind, wasn’t he?

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 10:10




              9




              9





              According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

              – Josh
              Feb 6 at 10:15





              According to wikipedia he ranked as a "General Emir of Al-Qaeda", although it depends if you want to restrict your question to regular millitary forces instead of irregular ones.

              – Josh
              Feb 6 at 10:15




              7




              7





              Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 10:17





              Al-Qaeda is almost universally recognized as a criminal organization, as far as I know.

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 10:17




              4




              4





              True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

              – Josh
              Feb 6 at 10:20





              True, but they also possess irregular military forces, which they used to fight soviet occupation.

              – Josh
              Feb 6 at 10:20




              2




              2





              We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

              – Michael W.
              Feb 7 at 19:06





              We think of bin Laden as hiding out in caves with just a ragtag band of disorganized terrorists at his disposal, and that's what he was in the end... but before the years of US attacks, he led a pretty significant psuedo-military operation. Judged by his whole history and not just the end, he definitely fits. +1.

              – Michael W.
              Feb 7 at 19:06











              20














              Attempt to kill or capture Tito



              Operation Rösselsprung was a failed attempt by the Germans to capture or kill Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia on the 25th of May, 1944.



              The attempt to kill or capture Tito was led by Kurt Rybka with 500th SS Parachute Battalion. Tito, however, escaped from his cave headquarters after the German's first assault had failed. The only part of Tito they ended up capturing was his uniform...



              enter image description here



              "Tito with members of the Supreme Staff in front of the cave in Drvar , May 1944." This photo was presumably taken not long before the German assault. Source: Wikipedia



              Initially involved in the attempt was Otto Skorzeny, perhaps best known for his key role in the rescue of Mussolini in Operation Eiche in September 1943. Skorzeny's plan, though, was compromised and had no further part in the events which followed.





              Capture of Admiral Horthy, regent of Hungary



              Perhaps a marginal case is that of the October 1944 Operation Panzerfaust, the successful capture of the Hungarian regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, which also involved Skorzeny.



              In 1920, Horthy had originally accepted the regency on the condition that he was also commander of the armed forces, but I can find little evidence as to what extent he was involved land-based operations. He did, however, continue to wear a uniform.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:04






              • 1





                I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:38






              • 1





                Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 14:17






              • 3





                @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

                – sempaiscuba
                Feb 6 at 16:58






              • 1





                @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 17:19
















              20














              Attempt to kill or capture Tito



              Operation Rösselsprung was a failed attempt by the Germans to capture or kill Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia on the 25th of May, 1944.



              The attempt to kill or capture Tito was led by Kurt Rybka with 500th SS Parachute Battalion. Tito, however, escaped from his cave headquarters after the German's first assault had failed. The only part of Tito they ended up capturing was his uniform...



              enter image description here



              "Tito with members of the Supreme Staff in front of the cave in Drvar , May 1944." This photo was presumably taken not long before the German assault. Source: Wikipedia



              Initially involved in the attempt was Otto Skorzeny, perhaps best known for his key role in the rescue of Mussolini in Operation Eiche in September 1943. Skorzeny's plan, though, was compromised and had no further part in the events which followed.





              Capture of Admiral Horthy, regent of Hungary



              Perhaps a marginal case is that of the October 1944 Operation Panzerfaust, the successful capture of the Hungarian regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, which also involved Skorzeny.



              In 1920, Horthy had originally accepted the regency on the condition that he was also commander of the armed forces, but I can find little evidence as to what extent he was involved land-based operations. He did, however, continue to wear a uniform.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:04






              • 1





                I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:38






              • 1





                Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 14:17






              • 3





                @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

                – sempaiscuba
                Feb 6 at 16:58






              • 1





                @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 17:19














              20












              20








              20







              Attempt to kill or capture Tito



              Operation Rösselsprung was a failed attempt by the Germans to capture or kill Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia on the 25th of May, 1944.



              The attempt to kill or capture Tito was led by Kurt Rybka with 500th SS Parachute Battalion. Tito, however, escaped from his cave headquarters after the German's first assault had failed. The only part of Tito they ended up capturing was his uniform...



              enter image description here



              "Tito with members of the Supreme Staff in front of the cave in Drvar , May 1944." This photo was presumably taken not long before the German assault. Source: Wikipedia



              Initially involved in the attempt was Otto Skorzeny, perhaps best known for his key role in the rescue of Mussolini in Operation Eiche in September 1943. Skorzeny's plan, though, was compromised and had no further part in the events which followed.





              Capture of Admiral Horthy, regent of Hungary



              Perhaps a marginal case is that of the October 1944 Operation Panzerfaust, the successful capture of the Hungarian regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, which also involved Skorzeny.



              In 1920, Horthy had originally accepted the regency on the condition that he was also commander of the armed forces, but I can find little evidence as to what extent he was involved land-based operations. He did, however, continue to wear a uniform.






              share|improve this answer















              Attempt to kill or capture Tito



              Operation Rösselsprung was a failed attempt by the Germans to capture or kill Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia on the 25th of May, 1944.



              The attempt to kill or capture Tito was led by Kurt Rybka with 500th SS Parachute Battalion. Tito, however, escaped from his cave headquarters after the German's first assault had failed. The only part of Tito they ended up capturing was his uniform...



              enter image description here



              "Tito with members of the Supreme Staff in front of the cave in Drvar , May 1944." This photo was presumably taken not long before the German assault. Source: Wikipedia



              Initially involved in the attempt was Otto Skorzeny, perhaps best known for his key role in the rescue of Mussolini in Operation Eiche in September 1943. Skorzeny's plan, though, was compromised and had no further part in the events which followed.





              Capture of Admiral Horthy, regent of Hungary



              Perhaps a marginal case is that of the October 1944 Operation Panzerfaust, the successful capture of the Hungarian regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, which also involved Skorzeny.



              In 1920, Horthy had originally accepted the regency on the condition that he was also commander of the armed forces, but I can find little evidence as to what extent he was involved land-based operations. He did, however, continue to wear a uniform.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Feb 7 at 14:17

























              answered Feb 6 at 12:49









              Lars BosteenLars Bosteen

              39.4k8185250




              39.4k8185250








              • 1





                Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:04






              • 1





                I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:38






              • 1





                Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 14:17






              • 3





                @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

                – sempaiscuba
                Feb 6 at 16:58






              • 1





                @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 17:19














              • 1





                Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:04






              • 1





                I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 13:38






              • 1





                Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 14:17






              • 3





                @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

                – sempaiscuba
                Feb 6 at 16:58






              • 1





                @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

                – Filippof
                Feb 6 at 17:19








              1




              1





              Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 13:04





              Pretty fine. The Germans too had their day of glory...

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 13:04




              1




              1





              I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 13:38





              I’m noticing that — with the controversial exception of bin Laden’s killing — Operation Vengeance was mostly the unique case of successful individual targeting of enemy leader.

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 13:38




              1




              1





              Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 14:17





              Nice tip, even if it’s a borderline example, while it consisted of overthrowing a political leader, AFAIK. Physical elimination was hardly considered, anyway, I think.

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 14:17




              3




              3





              @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

              – sempaiscuba
              Feb 6 at 16:58





              @Filippof The rarity of successful targeted attacks against enemy commanders probably reflects just how difficult it is to get the right intelligence, at the right time, and also deploy the necessary forces in a timely manner. Operation Vengeance had the advantage of the US having broken the Japanese Naval Cipher JN-25D, and then intercepting signals containing full details of Yamamoto's itinerary, including times, locations, and even the types of aircraft to be used!

              – sempaiscuba
              Feb 6 at 16:58




              1




              1





              @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 17:19





              @sempaiscuba Good point. Anyway, performing the attack was an outstanding effort, from an aviation standpoint. Yamamoto was seen as the Absolute Evil from the US, even if he was unlikely to be that bad (seems it didn’t agree with the decision of attacking Pearl Harbor as it actually happened; but that’s a different story).

              – Filippof
              Feb 6 at 17:19











              6














              The United States opened the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an attempted Decapitation Strike against Saddam Hussein.






              share|improve this answer
























              • I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

                – Filippof
                Feb 7 at 11:15
















              6














              The United States opened the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an attempted Decapitation Strike against Saddam Hussein.






              share|improve this answer
























              • I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

                – Filippof
                Feb 7 at 11:15














              6












              6








              6







              The United States opened the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an attempted Decapitation Strike against Saddam Hussein.






              share|improve this answer













              The United States opened the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an attempted Decapitation Strike against Saddam Hussein.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Feb 6 at 21:51









              Aric TenEyckAric TenEyck

              1611




              1611













              • I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

                – Filippof
                Feb 7 at 11:15



















              • I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

                – Filippof
                Feb 7 at 11:15

















              I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

              – Filippof
              Feb 7 at 11:15





              I admit a soft spot (that’s my fault): I hardly consider anything I cannot find on Wikipedia.

              – Filippof
              Feb 7 at 11:15











              5














              I just learned that Operation Gaff (1944) was another such attempt of taking out the “usual” Erwin Rommel.






              share|improve this answer






























                5














                I just learned that Operation Gaff (1944) was another such attempt of taking out the “usual” Erwin Rommel.






                share|improve this answer




























                  5












                  5








                  5







                  I just learned that Operation Gaff (1944) was another such attempt of taking out the “usual” Erwin Rommel.






                  share|improve this answer















                  I just learned that Operation Gaff (1944) was another such attempt of taking out the “usual” Erwin Rommel.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Feb 6 at 13:57

























                  answered Feb 6 at 10:54









                  FilippofFilippof

                  411411




                  411411























                      5














                      The abduction of German General Kreipe on Crete in 1944 (documented in the book and movie Ill Met by Moonlight might be one, although the intent was not to kill. The general was captured and smuggled off of Crete as a prisoner of war.






                      share|improve this answer
























                      • Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 14:39
















                      5














                      The abduction of German General Kreipe on Crete in 1944 (documented in the book and movie Ill Met by Moonlight might be one, although the intent was not to kill. The general was captured and smuggled off of Crete as a prisoner of war.






                      share|improve this answer
























                      • Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 14:39














                      5












                      5








                      5







                      The abduction of German General Kreipe on Crete in 1944 (documented in the book and movie Ill Met by Moonlight might be one, although the intent was not to kill. The general was captured and smuggled off of Crete as a prisoner of war.






                      share|improve this answer













                      The abduction of German General Kreipe on Crete in 1944 (documented in the book and movie Ill Met by Moonlight might be one, although the intent was not to kill. The general was captured and smuggled off of Crete as a prisoner of war.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Feb 6 at 14:31









                      Jon CusterJon Custer

                      36529




                      36529













                      • Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 14:39



















                      • Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 14:39

















                      Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 6 at 14:39





                      Interesting case, even if the kidnap of Kreipe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_Heinrich_Kreipe) was performed by SOE operatives and Crete resistance members (so, not exactly servicemen, I argue).

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 6 at 14:39











                      4














                      The Polish Home Army (a military force still subservient to the Polish Government in Exile), had operations that took out various police and military officials - and even attempted to kill Hitler, although the operation failed.



                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Assassinations_of_Nazi_leaders






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 1





                        Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 7 at 19:15






                      • 2





                        Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

                        – don bright
                        Feb 8 at 2:06













                      • @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 8 at 6:18











                      • well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

                        – don bright
                        Feb 9 at 4:56











                      • @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 9 at 8:10
















                      4














                      The Polish Home Army (a military force still subservient to the Polish Government in Exile), had operations that took out various police and military officials - and even attempted to kill Hitler, although the operation failed.



                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Assassinations_of_Nazi_leaders






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 1





                        Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 7 at 19:15






                      • 2





                        Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

                        – don bright
                        Feb 8 at 2:06













                      • @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 8 at 6:18











                      • well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

                        – don bright
                        Feb 9 at 4:56











                      • @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 9 at 8:10














                      4












                      4








                      4







                      The Polish Home Army (a military force still subservient to the Polish Government in Exile), had operations that took out various police and military officials - and even attempted to kill Hitler, although the operation failed.



                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Assassinations_of_Nazi_leaders






                      share|improve this answer













                      The Polish Home Army (a military force still subservient to the Polish Government in Exile), had operations that took out various police and military officials - and even attempted to kill Hitler, although the operation failed.



                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Assassinations_of_Nazi_leaders







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Feb 7 at 17:27









                      Michal PaszkiewiczMichal Paszkiewicz

                      431218




                      431218








                      • 1





                        Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 7 at 19:15






                      • 2





                        Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

                        – don bright
                        Feb 8 at 2:06













                      • @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 8 at 6:18











                      • well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

                        – don bright
                        Feb 9 at 4:56











                      • @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 9 at 8:10














                      • 1





                        Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 7 at 19:15






                      • 2





                        Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

                        – don bright
                        Feb 8 at 2:06













                      • @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 8 at 6:18











                      • well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

                        – don bright
                        Feb 9 at 4:56











                      • @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 9 at 8:10








                      1




                      1





                      Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 7 at 19:15





                      Yes, but... it was a resistance movement, I learn from Wikipedia. Again out of scope, I’m afraid.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 7 at 19:15




                      2




                      2





                      Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

                      – don bright
                      Feb 8 at 2:06







                      Filippof i think my question is, would it not be true that assassination performed by an "official military" is by it's very nature going to use "non-official" measures? In other words, armies in exile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid is a rather famous example... it was supported in many ways by the official allied forces, but the assassins themselves, well, would you consider them official members of the armed forces?

                      – don bright
                      Feb 8 at 2:06















                      @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 8 at 6:18





                      @donbright Fine remark. The original item, Operation Vengeance, it’s definitely a different stuff, you should agree. Your observation makes clearer the peculiarity of my initial issue.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 8 at 6:18













                      well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

                      – don bright
                      Feb 9 at 4:56





                      well, it is a very interesting thought. in essence, it would appear that the standard goal of most wars are about gaining land, and capturing cities, killing the enemy leader seems to be a different type of priority. is it because it is usually too difficult? or because it actually makes little difference in an outcome (for example, killing Heydrich did not stop the SS, the holocaust, the occupation of czechoslovakia, etc etc)

                      – don bright
                      Feb 9 at 4:56













                      @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 9 at 8:10





                      @donbright Your questions fly very high: I actually am not able to answer, don’t know if anyone can. My point is: Operation Vengeance really was what its name suggests, i.e. taking revenge on Yamamoto, which apparently was seen as the scapegoat of a strategic, political decision that had been up the very “top brass” of Nippon Empire, not to say that, in Basil Liddel Hart (et al.)’s opinion, Japan sorta had no real different chance than striking the US, provided its policies on foreign relations toward Japan. But it wasn’t, for sure, what US general audience felt about the whole matter.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 9 at 8:10











                      3














                      If we count the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942—1949 span of activity) (they had between 20.000 and 200.000 fighters) as a regular army. They actually killed many soviet officials, either from the army or the NKVD. Their more important kill was Nikolai Vatutin, commander of the 1st Ukranian Front during WWII.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 15:45


















                      3














                      If we count the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942—1949 span of activity) (they had between 20.000 and 200.000 fighters) as a regular army. They actually killed many soviet officials, either from the army or the NKVD. Their more important kill was Nikolai Vatutin, commander of the 1st Ukranian Front during WWII.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 15:45
















                      3












                      3








                      3







                      If we count the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942—1949 span of activity) (they had between 20.000 and 200.000 fighters) as a regular army. They actually killed many soviet officials, either from the army or the NKVD. Their more important kill was Nikolai Vatutin, commander of the 1st Ukranian Front during WWII.






                      share|improve this answer















                      If we count the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942—1949 span of activity) (they had between 20.000 and 200.000 fighters) as a regular army. They actually killed many soviet officials, either from the army or the NKVD. Their more important kill was Nikolai Vatutin, commander of the 1st Ukranian Front during WWII.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Feb 6 at 16:14









                      Filippof

                      411411




                      411411










                      answered Feb 6 at 15:40









                      SantiagoSantiago

                      2,708819




                      2,708819








                      • 1





                        Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 15:45
















                      • 1





                        Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

                        – Filippof
                        Feb 6 at 15:45










                      1




                      1





                      Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 6 at 15:45







                      Mmh. The UIA is defined as “paramilitary and later partisan” organization in en.wiki (hence the “insurgent” qualification). “Army” size doesn’t mean it’s a legit or revolutionary one. Not in the scope of my question; thanks anyway for your suggestion.

                      – Filippof
                      Feb 6 at 15:45




















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50989%2foperation-vengeance-and-individual-targeting-of-enemy-commanders%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?