War crimes accusation against WW2 New Zealand soldier

[Slater]

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.

 

[skidmark]

: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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tokugawa]

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]

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]

War is Hell! True words. I don't think there are many rules in Hell.

 

[Don Gwinn]

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]

Actually, I bet hell is all rules.

 

[Cosmoline]

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]

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.

 

[LAR-15]

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

 

[Sistema1927]

I guess that camoflage is "perfidy" now

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

 

[LAK]

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]

Fools

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]

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]

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.