BryanP
Member
Try Conan The Barbarian.
War crimes accusation against WW2 New Zealand soldier
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
Try Conan The Barbarian.
Black Dragon
Member
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)
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
Member
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
tanksoldier
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
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
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
Member
New Zealand: “Yes, we’re sorry our soldier had to kill your snipers.”
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
tanksoldier
Member
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.>>
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.>>
DRZinn
Member
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
Member
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? Hurry up, these people are not long for this life.
Hurry up, these people are not long for this life.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
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
tanksoldier:
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.
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.
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".
Mike
Husker1911
Member
My God. Rules in war. What will the PC crowd condemn next? Killing the enemy?
Stand_Watie
Member
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
Member
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.
<<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.
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
Member
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.>>
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.>>
Dannyboy
Member
Which was my point.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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
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
One Man War
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...
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
Moderator In Memoriam
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
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
- Status