Ruse - using enemy uniforms

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Habu
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 31 May 2005, 07:18
Location: US midwest

#16

Post by Habu » 03 May 2007, 11:51

Since this thread began, I've asked several WWII veterans about this issue. Every one of them (US Marine, US Army, Heer) said that--as Chris suggested--if they captured enemy soldiers wearing their uniforms, they probably would have been executed on-the-spot as spies.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#17

Post by Panzermahn » 31 Aug 2011, 12:50

British commando officers, Major Patrick Leigh Fermor and Captain William Stanley Moss would have been considered as war criminals if they were captured by the Germans, would have been sentenced to death for using German uniforms and attempting to abduct and kidnap a German general

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_General_Kreipe


Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re:

#18

Post by Panzermahn » 11 Oct 2013, 15:10

JamesL wrote:Here is a snip from the Laws of War Deskbook available at the US Army Judge Advocate General's website. It is CURRENT US military practice. Bold emphasis is mine.
______________

a. Uniforms. Combatants may wear enemy uniforms but cannot fight in
them. Note, however, that military personnel not wearing their uniform
lose their PW status if captured
and risk being treated as spies (FM 27-10,
para. 54, 74; NWP 1-14M, para. 12.5.3; AFP 110-31, 8-6.)

World War II - Germany: The most celebrated incident involving the use of enemy uniforms was the Otto Skorzeny trial arising from activities during the Battle of Bulge. Otto Skorzeny was brigade commander of the 150th SS Panzer Brigade. Several of his men were captured in U.S. uniforms, their mission being to secure three critical bridges in advance of the German attack. 18 of Skorzeny’s men were executed as spies following the battle. Following the war, ten of Skorzeny’s officers, as well as
Skorzeny himself, were accused of the improper use of enemy uniforms, among other charges. All were acquitted. The evidence did not show that they actually fought in the uniforms, consistent with their instructions. The case generally stands for the proposition that it is only the fighting in the enemy uniform that violates the law of war. (DA Pam 27-161-2 at 54.)


________

Skorzeny's men, captured in American uniforms were NOT prisoners of war. They lost their PW status. One can then reasonably conclude they were spies.
The statement "military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured and risk being treated as spies"

is this applicable as well to POWs who escaped from enemy POW's camp and then were recaptured?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#19

Post by David Thompson » 12 Oct 2013, 01:56

Panzermahn -- You asked
The statement "military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured and risk being treated as spies"

is this applicable as well to POWs who escaped from enemy POW's camp and then were recaptured?
No. The first part of the statement ("military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured) is inaccurate. The problem for the ordinary soldier is, when you get out of uniform and get captured, there's no presumption that you're a POW if you don't have your identification documents with you. The lesson is, don't get out of your uniform, and if you do, don't leave your ID in your other pants. If that happens, the burden is on you to prove you're entitled to POW status. Then, if you're not illegally shot by your captors immediately, you're going to have to answer a number of awkward questions. It might take a while, too. And the food -- if you get any -- won't be as good as what your captors are eating.

To understand this, look at the source material the deskbook quotes (FM 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, online at http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pu ... m27_10.pdf):
54. National Flags, Insignia, and Uniforms as a Ruse

In practice, it has been authorized to make use of national flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse. The foregoing rule (HR, art. 23, par. (f) ) does not prohibit such employment, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden.

74. Necessity of Uniform

Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.
So let's walk through the analysis. You're in the army, with a shiny new "butter-bar." A fellow gets captured in civilian clothes. Your men bring him to you. You speak with the captive, and he says he's an escaped POW. What do you do?

Q. Is he really an escaped POW? Did you check it out with the POW camp?

A. (1) Yes and yes. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. Then (at your superior officer's suggestion), you call the POW camp and tell that you have something that belongs to them. You light another cigarette, have some more coffee, and you wait for them to pick him up.

(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.

(3) No and yes. The military police come and take him away for further disposition that doesn't involve you.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#20

Post by Penn44 » 12 Oct 2013, 03:54

David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#21

Post by David Thompson » 12 Oct 2013, 05:57

Penn44 -- You wrote, of my answer to Panzermahn's question:
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.
No one said anything to the contrary in this exchange.

User avatar
Hecht
Member
Posts: 521
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 19:04
Location: from a mere

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#22

Post by Hecht » 12 Oct 2013, 15:27

Penn44 wrote:
David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.

Penn44

.
Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#23

Post by Penn44 » 12 Oct 2013, 20:00

David Thompson wrote:Penn44 -- You wrote, of my answer to Panzermahn's question:
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.
No one said anything to the contrary in this exchange.
David Thompson wrote:Penn44 -- You wrote, of my answer to Panzermahn's question:
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.
No one said anything to the contrary in this exchange.
David:

Given your scenario:
David Thompson wrote:You're in the army, with a shiny new "butter-bar."
I recommend that you repeat even the most obvious to the said lieutenant.

Over the course of modern history, how many commanders, to include Pieper and Capt Medina (Lt Calley's commander) have claimed that their orders were misunderstood. Although in those particular cases I suspect that the said commanders accurately related their intent to their subordinates, it is the responsibility of the commander to ensure that his orders are expressed clearly and are understood.

To quote Napoleon: "An order that can be misunderstood will be misunderstood;" a maxim that is all too true.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#24

Post by Penn44 » 12 Oct 2013, 20:12

Hecht wrote:
Penn44 wrote:
David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.

Penn44
Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.
Thank you for lending evidence to my point. Some people will not hear or understand everything presented in a Law of Land Warfare class, and some will later act on inaccurately understood information or assumptions. In a combat situation, 2nd Lt Hecht would have assumed Capt Thompson gave him instructions to shoot the said prisoner when in fact Capt Thompson did not. In dealing with these kinds of matters, the commander needs to be extremely explicit, clear and redundant.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#25

Post by David Thompson » 13 Oct 2013, 02:29

Hecht -- You wrote:
Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.
I think you're mistaken here. As a general proposition, summary executions of captured folk are prohibited by international law and the customs of land warfare. Whether the person is a soldier or civilian, if they're taken alive, they get a trial before any punishment can be imposed. The situation might be different if the person hadn't been already captured, of course.

Penn44 -- You wrote:
In dealing with these kinds of matters, the commander needs to be extremely explicit, clear and redundant.
I agree. His own life may later depend upon it.

Ossian
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 19:23
Location: Edmonton

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#26

Post by Ossian » 13 Oct 2013, 17:42

Hecht wrote:
Penn44 wrote:
David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.

Penn44

.
Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.
Neither accused nor suspected partisans (what we now call ''unlawful combatants'') can be lawfully executed without prior trial and conviction by a facially legal trial fora. in Eisenhower's command, both as Commanding General of the European Theater of Operations and Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, spies and partisans were supposed to be captured alive whenever possible for purposes of detailed, lengthy interrogation, possible conversion into double agents, and not to be subjected to summary execution without trial.

Eisenhower personally authorized the Commanding General of the US 12th Army Group to try suspected enemy spies in France by military commission, and to approve any death sentences. During the battle of the Bulge, this authority was delegated down to the army commanders. When the allies began to occupy German soil in September, 1944, Eisenhower personally authorized all army group commanders to try enemy nationals for offenses which included spying and acting as partisans in occupied German territory. No one was ever lawfully authorized to kill suspected spies after capture without trial. If such killings occurred, they would have been in violation of both the laws of war and Allied policy of the time.

User avatar
Hecht
Member
Posts: 521
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 19:04
Location: from a mere

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#27

Post by Hecht » 14 Oct 2013, 12:26

David Thompson wrote:Hecht -- You wrote:
Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.
I think you're mistaken here. As a general proposition, summary executions of captured folk are prohibited by international law and the customs of land warfare. Whether the person is a soldier or civilian, if they're taken alive, they get a trial before any punishment can be imposed. The situation might be different if the person hadn't been already captured, of course.
David,

Thanks for corrected me.

Permit me one further question; are prohibited or were prohibited?
I mean, executing a person found in civilian clothes concealing weapons or shooting at the "regular" soldiers, with no insignas on him and the fella being not able to produce any evidence he was a member of a Militia, was illegal before 1949?
My knowledge about the subject is little, but as far as I remember there had to be certain requirementes in order to be expected to be covered by Geneva, but I may be well wrong.
I've always thought for example that the Hostage Case stated no trial was needed for pillagers and plounders and for civilian franc-tireurs caught in arms: maybe there were to be tried to before execution?

Always interested into learn more about this subject.

Have a nice day.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#28

Post by David Thompson » 15 Oct 2013, 06:12

Hecht -- I'll answer your question as best I can, but it may take a few days.

User avatar
Hecht
Member
Posts: 521
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 19:04
Location: from a mere

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#29

Post by Hecht » 15 Oct 2013, 09:51

David Thompson wrote:Hecht -- I'll answer your question as best I can, but it may take a few days.
Thanks David, take your time please.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#30

Post by LWD » 15 Oct 2013, 14:54

Hecht,
You may be able to answer your question by looking around this site:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
It has the international agreements with dates associated. However some interpretation may be required.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”