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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#31

Post by Hecht » 15 Oct 2013, 16:50

LWD wrote: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.
Hello LWD,

Thanks for the link, I know it already, I've got little knowledge about the subject but I've already read the most important sources about the matter, the Hostage Case included.
As you say, some interpretation may be required, and this is actually the point I was trying to make.

There's a very thin line between an escaped POW without documents or armed refusing to answer the questions and a plounder\pillager or simply a civilian with no documents, no insignas of Militias and armed or shooting at the regular soldier.
I mean, it's very difficult to understand who the guy is; of course, you can say "handle him to the MP", but this wouldn't be so easy for example during harsh no quarters clashes.
My interpretation is that if you are were not able to fullfill Geneva requirements in order to be covered as a regular soldier\POW, you could well expect to be executed on the spot with no trial, but again, I may be very well wrong.
Spies, deserteres, militiamen had to be tried before execution, but what about civilians in arms and I mean no commanders-no insignas-concealed weapons?
Wasn't this the reason why Geneva was updated in 1948, in order to cover even guerrilas fighters without insignas?

I have also another question; where there any specific requirements for the trial? I mean, in terms of time, locations, etc.etc.?


Many thanks to everybody for keeping this civil!

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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#32

Post by LWD » 16 Oct 2013, 15:33

From what I recall civilians no matter what were suppose to recieve a trial before punishment. The difference is that they recieved none of the protections due to a POW. An escaped POW was allowed to be in civilian clothes as long as he wasn't taking direct action against his enemies I believe. Not sure how self defence would play into that. The standard name, rank, and serial number should allow for verification of POW and/or military status though.


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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#33

Post by Hecht » 16 Oct 2013, 22:07

LWD wrote:From what I recall civilians no matter what were suppose to recieve a trial before punishment. The difference is that they recieved none of the protections due to a POW. An escaped POW was allowed to be in civilian clothes as long as he wasn't taking direct action against his enemies I believe. Not sure how self defence would play into that. The standard name, rank, and serial number should allow for verification of POW and/or military status though.
LWD, thanks for the reply.

The point is: how would be considerated a guerrilla's fighter with no uniform,no insignas, no commander, and with concealed weapons?
I don't think that the civilian category would fit for that.
And what about an armed POW refusing to give rank, serial number and name in order to avoid to be sent back to the POW camp?
As you see, there are several variables, and wasn't always clear how to behave, since the anti-partisan war was sure an intricate matter as testified by the Hostage Case.

Have a nice day

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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#34

Post by LWD » 17 Oct 2013, 16:58

Hecht wrote: ...The point is: how would be considerated a guerrilla's fighter with no uniform,no insignas, no commander, and with concealed weapons?
I don't think that the civilian category would fit for that.
Actually I believe he would, possibly also considered an unlawful combatant. If summary trials and executions were allowed in the home country of the they might be allowed in dealing with such individuals. Note that early in the 20th century reprisal action were allowed for instance. However they were supposed to be proportional and again due process needed to be applied.
And what about an armed POW refusing to give rank, serial number and name in order to avoid to be sent back to the POW camp?
Then the above were a legal requirement to prove he was due the POW protections. Without them there is nothing to prove that he is/was a POW.
As you see, there are several variables, and wasn't always clear how to behave, since the anti-partisan war was sure an intricate matter as testified by the Hostage Case.
There are variables but the clear intent was that due process was necessary and that the controlling power was responsible for the welfare of the civilians in the area. Given due process actions that were and are reprehensible were still allowed. At least by the pre WWII conventions. The post WWII ones tightened up those quite a bit.

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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#35

Post by Hecht » 17 Oct 2013, 18:01

LWD wrote:
Hecht wrote: ...The point is: how would be considerated a guerrilla's fighter with no uniform,no insignas, no commander, and with concealed weapons?
I don't think that the civilian category would fit for that.
Actually I believe he would, possibly also considered an unlawful combatant. If summary trials and executions were allowed in the home country of the they might be allowed in dealing with such individuals. Note that early in the 20th century reprisal action were allowed for instance. However they were supposed to be proportional and again due process needed to be applied.
Thanks for taking the time to reply LWD.
I think reprisal are another matter.

I'm still not sure an armed civilian not fullfilling the requirements to be considered a lawful combatant would be considered simply as a civilian and not as a thug or a bandit.
If you are armed, you are clearly not a civilian, and if you are a civilian, you are not armed; if you are a civilian and you would like to defend your country, as far as I remember, you should fullfill some requirements in order to be considered as a lawfull combatant and not a civilian anymore.
But I may be well wrong.

Let's put it this way, very basic; would exist any "chance" for any WWII army outside its own country to legally execute anybody on the spot without any trial?

This is an interesting subject, at least for me!

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#36

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 18 Oct 2013, 01:46

You miss what a "trial" may be on the "battlefield". Often it comes down to one soldier making a judgement if whether or not somebody is a spy or not. Even though optimally an officer should be present to make such judgements. In the case of "civilians" without identifiable uniforms or markings AND bearing/using arms, they are covered under the title of SPIES. Of which the result is a summary execution as a result of a summary trial. A summary trial in
the field in this case, is simply one soldier looking at the evidence, and making/asking for a reply. If no reputable reply is given, the accused are guilty at that point, and subject to execution. If the judgement is later overruled by higher authority, then the judgement was illegal. But I suggest looking for such results in any army , because they are few and far between and rightly so.

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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#37

Post by Penn44 » 18 Oct 2013, 02:34

ChristopherPerrien wrote:You miss what a "trial" may be on the "battlefield". Often it comes down to one soldier making a judgement if whether or not somebody is a spy or not. Even though optimally an officer should be present to make such judgements.
We have not missed what a "trial" is on the "battlefield." If the "soldier" does not have legal authority to perform a "trial," and trial is a farce, then its murder.
What you have described violates the law of land warfare.
ChristopherPerrien wrote:A summary trial in the field in this case, is simply one soldier looking at the evidence, and making/asking for a reply. If no reputable reply is given, the accused are guilty at that point, and subject to execution. If the judgement is later overruled by higher authority, then the judgement was illegal.
What is your source?

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.

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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#38

Post by Ossian » 18 Oct 2013, 16:57

I thought participants in this thread might like to see a copy of the Military Commission Order which was issued in the first alleged case of Germans wearing enemy uniforms (US). I will post the second page of the order later this evening. The document is not that legible as posted, but is quite readable in Windows Paint.

Image

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

Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms

#39

Post by Ossian » 20 Oct 2013, 15:49

Ossian wrote:I thought participants in this thread might like to see a copy of the Military Commission Order which was issued in the first alleged case of Germans wearing enemy uniforms (US). I will post the second page of the order later this evening. The document is not that legible as posted, but is quite readable in Windows Paint.

Image
And with my apologies or the slight delay, here is the second page of the Military Commission Order issued in the case of Billing, Pernass and Schmidt!

Image


Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”