War crimes accusation against WW2 New Zealand soldier


PDA






Slater
April 10, 2006, 05:04 PM
Sounds pretty crappy to me. Thoughts?:



VC winner branded a war criminal
By Paul Chapman in Wellington
(Filed: 10/04/2006)

A ruse that helped to win a soldier the Victoria Cross during the Second World War was a "war crime" and New Zealand should apologise to the families of the snipers he killed, it was claimed yesterday.

Alfred Clive Hulme, the father of Denny Hulme, the late world motor racing champion, was awarded the VC for bravery in killing 33 German snipers over eight days during the Battle of Crete in 1941. He returned home a hero to the town of Nelson.

But a new book by two military historians says that, in winning his VC, Sgt Hulme committed "acts of perfidy" under international law.

Lt Col Glyn Harper, a professor at the New Zealand army's Military Studies Institute, who co-authored the book, In the Face of the Enemy, said that on one occasion Sgt Hulme donned a German paratrooper's smock, climbed up behind a nest of enemy snipers, and pretended to be part of their group.

"He shot the leader first, and as the other four snipers looked around to see where the shot had come from, Hulme also turned his head as if searching for the shooter," the book says.

"Then he shot and killed two more." He shot the other two as they tried to leave.

"Hulme deserved the VC for his outstanding bravery, but he shouldn't have done what he did in disguising himself."

Other academics have supported the book's claims. Peter Wills, the deputy director of the Centre for Peace Studies at Auckland University, said Sgt Hulme's actions were "unsanctioned murder".

He told the Sunday Star-Times that the New Zealand government should apologise to the families of the Germans he killed. Bill Hodge, associate professor of law at Auckland University, said killing enemy soldiers while wearing their uniform was "prima facie a war crime".

Sgt Hulme died in 1982. His daughter, Anita, said accusing him of war crimes was "a terrible thing to bring up".

His VC is on display in the army's national museum at its headquarters in Waiouru.

If you enjoyed reading about "War crimes accusation against WW2 New Zealand soldier" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
skidmark
April 10, 2006, 05:16 PM
:banghead:
I have completed a very quick run-through of the 1934 Geneva Conventions, and did not see anything about wearing the enemy's uniform, or uniform parts as this case suggests (smock vs. complete uniform) as being a "war crime." If I missed something I would appreciate a citation.

One could be accused of being a spy if caught wearing the enemy's uniform or uniform parts, but this fellow was not caught or charged with spying.

I think some academics have confused themselves regarding "acts of perfidy" - IMHO the old saying still applies to both war and romantics.

"perfidy

It is prohibited to pretend to surrender, without an actual intention to do so. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Pretending to seek a cease-fire with the intent to betray the confidence in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary is perfidy and is prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1a)"

[edited to add quotes from Geneva Conventions]

stay safe.

skidmark

Azrael256
April 10, 2006, 05:22 PM
Wait just a minute... How *exactly* is donning an enemy uniform to trick them "perfidy?" I could see mowing down POWs in the Belgian snow as being perfidious. Hmm...

If those Kiwi blokes issue an apology, New Zealand will officially be lost.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 05:24 PM
ABSOLUTE HOGWASH!

Give him another medal for being clever.

These authors and "peace experts" are a perfect example of left wing academics. Hopefully they'll be sent to the ninth level of hell where they can spend some quality time with the Nazi snipers they love so much.

Kevlarman
April 10, 2006, 05:32 PM
If this hero loses ONE SECOND of sleep over these baseless charges, the authors deserve to be sent to the ninth level of hell for some quality time with those Nazi snipers they love so much.


Be pretty hard to wake up a guy who has been dead since 1982. :neener:

I don't see the problem with his actions either. It's not like he pretended to be a medic and fired on the enemy.

skidmark
April 10, 2006, 05:34 PM
OK, went & got the definitions of "war crimes" that these academics are ranting about:

Nuremberg Rules, in Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 U.N.T.S. 279, entered into force Aug. 8, 1945.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing:

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity:

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. . . .

Seems to me using an enemy's smock as camoflage is neither "perfidy" or a "war crime."

Wonder if applying tar & feathers to an academic who is straddling a rail is a violation of Section C above?

stay safe.

skidmark

Baba Louie
April 10, 2006, 05:48 PM
Other academics have supported the book's claims. Peter Wills, the deputy director of the Centre for Peace Studies at Auckland University, said Sgt Hulme's actions were "unsanctioned murder".Makes me wonder how many times these guys have been in combat, within spitting distance of the enemy, each a trained marksman who'd kill your buddies in a heartbeat with zero remorse.
I guess some people have too much time on their hands and not enough thought process to place themselves in this very brave man's shoes, er boots.

I think they should apologize to his family and all WWII soldiers and THEIR families for putting their "modern" non-sensical thought process, judgment and written words condemning this mans action... and/or learn to understand the "hate the enemy" (ends justify the means) mentality as our grandfathers chose to do (or were brainwashed/indoctrinated by their respective governments) to get their jobs done, back in the day.

D-Day ruses & deceptions... (perfidy?) http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005015.php

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 06:03 PM
Be pretty hard to wake up a guy who has been dead since 1982

Yes yes. I corrected it but THR bugged out on me again and the edit took some time to appear.

Actually in some ways that's a small blessing since he doesn't have to hear this kind of claptrap. What needs to happen here is a "Twilight Zone" where these "experts" get to live in a New Zealand of today under the Axis boot.

Hawkmoon
April 10, 2006, 06:44 PM
Anybody have names of these "academics," and name and address of publisher? I'd like to contact them and ask for specific documentation of exactly what rule, regulation or convention this supposed "war crime" actually violated.

Morons.

[Edit]Oh, dear. I just read the article a bit more closely. One of the authors was a Lt. Colonel. Dang, a field grade officer damned well should know better than to characterize this action as a "war crime," or even state that "... he shouldn't have done what he did in disguising himself."

Thefabulousfink
April 10, 2006, 07:18 PM
Of course he shouldn't of disguised himself. He should have polished his boots, straightened his uniform, and marched toward his enemies machine guns at a stately walk.:banghead:

War is not nice! It is no longer fought by gentlemen who line up their armies then meet in the middle to exchange pleasantries. Rules for war are good and the commanders sould follow them, however when the bullets start flying the only rule for the soldier is "do what you can to come back alive."

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 07:44 PM
Sgt. York trying to impersonate a turkey was also well outside the bounds of civilized warfare. Also, he should have filed the proper forms before he took action. Lord save us from the Jr. Bird Men.

vynx
April 10, 2006, 07:53 PM
You can tell these authors never fought in a war - probably never fought in anything.

Sounds like more PC bullxxxx. By God the allis won so we have to villify them.
Ooop's, No God references allowed not PC. Heck, I'll bet this guy ate meat also...when will we hear from pita:mad:

Tokugawa
April 10, 2006, 09:36 PM
Those academics don't have the common sense of a flea. Or more disturbingly, perhaps they do and are deliberately trying to discredit the VC winners record.

Dannyboy
April 10, 2006, 09:42 PM
It certainly wasn't a war crime but I think it wasn't the smartest thing to do. We executed the Germans we caught during Operation Greif. They certainly executed any Allied soldiers they caught not in their own uniform.

grampster
April 10, 2006, 09:59 PM
War is Hell! True words. I don't think there are many rules in Hell.

Don Gwinn
April 10, 2006, 10:03 PM
It certainly wasn't a war crime but I think it wasn't the smartest thing to do. We executed the Germans we caught during Operation Greif. They certainly executed any Allied soldiers they caught not in their own uniform.

Yeah, clearly he just didn't know what he was doing. Too bad we weren't there to show him how it's done.

Owen
April 10, 2006, 10:04 PM
Actually, I bet hell is all rules.

Cosmoline
April 10, 2006, 10:09 PM
I think it wasn't the smartest thing to do. We executed the Germans we caught during Operation Greif. They certainly executed any Allied soldiers they caught not in their own uniform

By the end of the war they were executing anyone they felt like executing. We sent the SS to hell on sight in return. Any notion that the war in Europe or the Pacific was being fought by the rules of war is absurd. The war crimes trials were really just an excuse to kill people who needed to be killed. It's a huge mistake to try to make any more of it than that. If you do, you end up with absolute claptrap like these bozos have spewed out.

Kim
April 10, 2006, 10:25 PM
There are many pie in the sky left wing so called intellectuals who really think that by passing so and so international law they can outlaw war or make it like a peace nik get together in a New York Park. Our government is full of them espically the State Dept, our law schools and groups like the ACLU, Amnesity International, Human Rights Watch, Global Exchange and the U.N. Remember there an anti-war ie peace pacifist party in the US who believes the WOT should just be a act of police action in accord with international and US domestic law. Remember and don't forget.:what:

LAR-15
April 10, 2006, 10:44 PM
This is the same retarted country the backed out of purchasing F-16 fighter jets because they determined them not good for UN peacekeeping missions :uhoh:

Sistema1927
April 10, 2006, 10:51 PM
I guess that camoflage is "perfidy" now :confused:

Too bad that a good man's name is being drug through the mud.

LAK
April 11, 2006, 05:33 AM
And what would be said of any Iraqi who got hold of some our combat clothing and other current gear, played the part, casually mingled with some of our troopers - and killed them?

Donning the enemy's garb and creating other deceptive ruses has been common in many wars. But let's make sure that we don't whitewash it for some, and call it something else for others. It is one or the other.

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

GrammatonCleric
April 11, 2006, 05:44 AM
Oh poppycock!! These leftist "intellectuals" couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions written on the heel. It is an absolute TRAVESTY that the actions of a genuine hero are being "Monday-morning Quarterbacked" by a couple of retards who have no idea what they are talking about.

Destructo6
April 11, 2006, 07:03 AM
Donning the enemy's garb and creating other deceptive ruses has been common in many wars. But let's make sure that we don't whitewash it for some, and call it something else for others. It is one or the other.
But the act is, indeed, two seperate things. For one side, it's a great thing and for the other it is vile and terrible.

Under the first Hague Convention, Sec 1, Chapter 1, Article 1, to be considered a belligerent and, therefore, protected under the Conventions, one must:
[/Article 1
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
So, what he did simply removed him from the protections provided by the convention, but was not criminal.

It's not unlike a Corpsman or Medic carrying and using offensive weapons (rifles) and tossing his Geneva Convention Card.

molonlabe
April 11, 2006, 07:11 AM
Wow PC warfare.

I subscribe to
Crush your enemy, drive them before you and hear the lamentation of the women.Ghengis Kahn I think.

So, what he did simply removed him from the protections provided by the convention, but was not criminal.

Correct, That is why spies are shot.

BryanP
April 11, 2006, 07:24 AM
I subscribe to
Crush your enemy, drive them before you and hear the lamentation of the women.Ghengis Kahn I think.

Try Conan The Barbarian. ;)

Black Dragon
April 11, 2006, 07:50 AM
Any that's worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for. If I had to dress up in
a Prom dress to save the lives of my unit/men/friends.....guess what, I'm
going to do it.
What did Patton say? "No one won a war by dying for their country, you win
wars by making the other guy die of his country"
(Edited for Art's Grandma)

molonlabe
April 11, 2006, 07:59 AM
Try Conan The Barbarian.


Not hardly, the quote was lifted for the movie from History. Looks like I need to research it.

I love the internet.

"The greatest happiness is
to vanquish your enemies,
to chase them before you,
to rob them of their wealth,
to see those dear to them
bathed in tears, to clasp to
your bosom their wives
and daughters"
-GENGHIS KHAN

Biker
April 11, 2006, 08:03 AM
It was indeed Ghengis Khan who made that statement.
Biker

tanksoldier
April 11, 2006, 08:04 AM
Technically they're correct. Dressing in the uniform of the enemy is a war crime. It can get you shot as a spy if captured, rather than interned as a POW.

In order to be consided a legal combattant you have to meet several standards. You have to be under the command of someone responsible for your actions. You have to bear arms openly. You have to wear a recognizable uniform or identifying insignia.

Wearing the uniform of the enemy violates the recognizable uniform rule.

So, yes... the authors are technically correct... but they don't display much common sense.

lbmii
April 11, 2006, 10:38 AM
Regardless, the whole idea is to rewrite history. One must make the heroes the villains. Anything good about western civilization is to be projected as bad. Any and all aspects of the history of western civilization must be discredited. This goes down to the very last detail.

This is what it is all about and nothing more.

“Peter Wills, the deputy director of the Centre for Peace Studies at Auckland University, said Sgt Hulme's actions were "unsanctioned murder".”

This is how it all works these days in academia. These authors will now be the recipients of all sorts of awards and accolades. Their peers will stand and cheer them. “Yes finally someone who stands for the truth!” This is what they will say.

Baba Louie
April 11, 2006, 11:31 AM
Yes, War is Hell. Lies, deception, deceit, killing of innocents, mistruths, half truths, propaganda. Same Story, Different Day.

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

The Truth shall set you free.

Truth being a perception. Events seen from two or three eyewitnesses will rarely be described exactly the same. Add a week, a month, three-score years to the telling of a tale from people who were not there, call it an academic study and what have you got?

War is Hell. Lies, deception, deceit, killing of innocents, mistruths, half truths, propaganda. Same Story, Different Day.

Rarely, is the loser allowed to write THE historical literature for future generations. Sometimes, the actual events are so well suppressed that it seems incredulous to think that OUR Dads, Uncles & Grandpa's would have done anything so horrific.

"We are still savages at heart and wear our thin uniform of civilization awkwardly." George Bernard Shaw

Gordon Fink
April 11, 2006, 12:42 PM
New Zealand: “Yes, we’re sorry our soldier had to kill your snipers.”

~G. Fink

tanksoldier
April 12, 2006, 02:28 AM
Well, it is the truth... and that's fine as far as it goes.

What these academics are failing to realize is that WWII was a different time and place (es). The rules were different depending on whom the players were. The Western front saw it's share of atrocity, but was nothing compared to the Eastern front... and these are documented cases of Japanese officers decapitating allied prisoners and the eating parts of them. The Rape of Nanjing, the firebombing of Tokyo and Deresden, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust... I could go on and on. Neither side was blameless, and that's just the kind of war it was.

That's the point these authors are missing. What's the big deal of one Soldier cheating at the rules at a time when the whole world had gone stark raving mad?


<<This is how it all works these days in academia. These authors will now be the recipients of all sorts of awards and accolades. Their peers will stand and cheer them. “Yes finally someone who stands for the truth!” This is what they will say.>>

roscoe
April 12, 2006, 02:33 AM
Sounds like he was an enemy combatant and could have been held at Guantanamo indefinitely.

DRZinn
April 12, 2006, 02:37 AM
Yeah, real funny, slick. Had he been captured by the Germans, he could rightly have been executed as a spy. If for whatever reason they didn't want to kill him, but did want to treat him as a POW, he could be held until the end of the war. Assuming the Geneva Conventions applied (which they didn't really), he would not qualify as a POW under them.

John G
April 12, 2006, 02:41 AM
Operation Merkur was a mess. There were so-called atrocities commited by both sides, even by the supposed non combatants. What, are we going to convict every local civilians who killed German prisoners? :confused: Hurry up, these people are not long for this life.

Coronach
April 12, 2006, 02:55 AM
So, his supposed "crime" was donning the (partial) uniform of an enemy soldier, going behind enemy lines, and killing germans.

OK.

As I understand it, this is a "war crime" only in that he just opted himself out of any Geneva or Hague protections the Germans might have been willing to afford him, had they caputured him. He would have been, probably correctly, branded a spy, or at least a non-uniformed combatant, and subject to execution.

Is that pretty much it?

Wow. Sounds like he earned his Victoria Cross to me. He went out, possibly voluntarily, on a mission where his two options were success or certain death. His 'acts of perfidity' were, I imagine, done with eyes wide open as to the consequences, they were a gamble designed to take the fight to the enemy at the cost of the removal of surrender as an option.

I'd take one of him over a million Professors of Peace Studies. Thanks.

Mike

Robert Hairless
April 12, 2006, 03:04 AM
tanksoldier:

In order to be consided a legal combattant you have to meet several standards. You have to be under the command of someone responsible for your actions. You have to bear arms openly. You have to wear a recognizable uniform or identifying insignia.

But, gee, wouldn't that make "insurgents" in Iraq who dress like Iraqi civilians and "terrorists" who wear civilian clothing while trying to murder innocent people in Israel and other countries something other than legal combatants?

Does anyone know if Germany has yet apologized for Operation Greif, in which Otto Skorzeny infiltrated English-speaking Nazi troops dressed in British and U.S. Army uniforms and wearing dog tags taken from Allied corpses? Maybe the authors of that book might have heard.

Coronach
April 12, 2006, 03:09 AM
In order to be consided a legal combattant you have to meet several standards. You have to be under the command of someone responsible for your actions. You have to bear arms openly. You have to wear a recognizable uniform or identifying insignia.But, gee, wouldn't that make "insurgents" in Iraq who dress like Iraqi civilians and "terrorists" who wear civilian clothing while trying to murder innocent people in Israel and other countries something other than legal combatants?I think Mr. Hume would probably not be considered a "legal combatant". That's not a crime, it just means he is not eligible for the protections of the Conventions. Most of what the insurgents in Iraq are doing are not war crimes either (some things are, of course)...they're just engaging in guerrilla warfare. Ergo, they can be held without Convention protections, and so could have Mr. Hume. This does not make him a criminal and it does not make him unworthy of accolade.

Heck, it probably makes him far more worthy of accolade. "Unsanctioned murder?" Try explaining that position in a VFW. You'd probably get a really detailed demonstration of "unsanctioned murder". :scrutiny:

Mike

Husker1911
April 12, 2006, 04:09 AM
My God. Rules in war. What will the PC crowd condemn next? Killing the enemy?

Stand_Watie
April 12, 2006, 05:09 AM
Lt Col Glyn Harper, a professor at the New Zealand army's Military Studies Institute, who co-authored the book, In the Face of the Enemy, said that on one occasion Sgt Hulme donned a German paratrooper's smock, climbed up behind a nest of enemy snipers, and pretended to be part of their group."He shot the leader first, and as the other four snipers looked around to see where the shot had come from, Hulme also turned his head as if searching for the shooter," the book says."Then he shot and killed two more." He shot the other two as they tried to leave."Hulme deserved the VC for his outstanding bravery, but he shouldn't have done what he did in disguising himself."...Other academics have supported the book's claims. Peter Wills, the deputy director of the Centre for Peace Studies at Auckland University, said Sgt Hulme's actions were "unsanctioned murder".

In all fairness to Harper, what he and Wills are saying appear to be two different things. You may have a case of one man making a legal argument for the sake of intellectual debate amongst military students (and a perfectly relevant debate it is), and a peacenik piggybacking on with much more outrageous remarks. The underlined remarks appear to be fairly mild criticism in light of saying that that the man deserved a VC.

Just as Hume's actions deserve to be given context, Harper's words should be taken in context, and I suspect Wills and the reporter writing the article are taking them out of context for the purpose of selling headlines and an anti-war agenda.

tanksoldier
April 12, 2006, 05:12 AM
The Hauge Convention was signed in 1907. It's not exactly new.

<<My God. Rules in war. What will the PC crowd condemn next? Killing the enemy?>>

Not wearing a uniform, or wearing the uniform of the enemy, makes you an illegal combatant subject to summary execution. While it's not in the same class as the mass execution of civilians (it's actually legal to execute prisoners, btw) it is a war crime... hence the term "illegal" combatant.

And yes, that does make the insurgents in Iraq illegal combattants. Even if they wear identifying insignia during operations, they don't bear arms openly... ie: all the time. They hide them between operations, just like the VC in Vietnam. It's almost impossible for an insurgency to strictly follow the Law of Land Warfare, guerilla operations are too vulnerable to conventional forces if they remain in the field under arms continuously.

Incidentally, it was set up that way on purpose. The major nations intentionally stacked the deck against unconventional forces, and weaker nations, by making the law of war conform to the major nations' strengths.

Incidentally, the Hague and Geneva Conventions don't apply to nations which haven't signed or ratified them... which the US has not. They also don't apply to combattants who don't represent a national entity, which the Iraqi insurgents do not.

c_yeager
April 12, 2006, 05:16 AM
Wearing an enemies uniform is *not* a "war crime". It disqualifies him from the status of being a soldier, and exempts him from the protections thereof if captured. However, that isnt a crime. If it were, every single spy would be a war criminal, and that is not the case.

tanksoldier
April 12, 2006, 05:29 AM
That's true. Simply wearing the uniform is not the war crime. It merely removes the wearer from the status of being a Soldier and removed the various protections.

Engaging the enemy wile wearing it is the war crime. If he had merely reconed the enemy position or something he would be fine. He would be considered a spy if caught, but as was pointed out being a spy isn't a war crime... even tho it can get you executed without trial. Killing while not in the status of a legal combattant was the war crime. Only legal combattants, Soldiers or properly organized Partisans (those who follow the rules for combattants ie: uniformed, under proper command, bear arms openly, etc) are allowed to kill on the battlefield.


<<Wearing an enemies uniform is *not* a "war crime". It disqualifies him from the status of being a soldier, and exempts him from the protections thereof if captured. However, that isnt a crime. If it were, every single spy would be a war criminal, and that is not the case.>>

Tokugawa
April 12, 2006, 06:02 PM
Oh no! What if we hurt the enemies feelings!!!!

Dannyboy
April 12, 2006, 10:46 PM
Quote:
So, what he did simply removed him from the protections provided by the convention, but was not criminal.

Correct, That is why spies are shot.
Which was my point.

Art Eatman
April 12, 2006, 11:48 PM
If we catch an enemy disguised in one of our uniforms, we'd most likely kill him out of hand.

Had Hulme been caught, he'd have suffered the same fate. I'd bet he knew that, and took the calculated risk.

People watch too many Hollyweird movies. This apparently includes military academics...

Art

JoshM
April 13, 2006, 08:20 PM
Hulme's brother, Corporal "Blondie" Hulme, was also killed at Crete and Hulme after hearing this news later went on to avenge his brother's death.

Prior to this though Hulme had already gained a reputation for waging a one man war. Including stalking Nazi snipers, silencing sentries, releasing NZ POW's, and sabotaging grounded German aircraft.

You can read his exploits below - scroll down to page 94.

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-23Ba-c5.html

Thankfully, the suggestion of apologising for Hume's VC actions has been widely ridiculed as just typical academic foolishness...

Art Eatman
April 14, 2006, 12:00 AM
To drift a bit: Josh, some folks just have a knack for that sort of thing. While my father never talked a lot about WW II in France and Germany, what he did say sorta gave me the feeling he regarded it as a more interesting form of deer hunting. His biggest problem was getting cigars.

Pop wandered out for a visit one evening when a friend and I were working on my race car. The subject drifted off to recent drag-boat races, where a guy had died from having the water catch his helmet and snap his neck, when the boat flipped.

My father commented that the German helmets were quite tight-fitting, and concussion from artillery could actually remove the helmet and the top of the skull. Therefore, they wore the throat latches rather tight.

"That made it easy on patrol. You'd just work up behind a sentry, grab the front of his helmet and (holding his left forearm up and horizontal) roll his head back and break his neck."

Patrol? 'Scuse me? Pop was a Motor Pool officer in Patton's 3rd. He wasn't supposed to do the patrol bit. But, he'd get bored...

War, like self-defense is hair, teeth and eyeballs. You ain't there to dance.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "War crimes accusation against WW2 New Zealand soldier" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!