VC winner branded 'war criminal' - wore a German paratrooper's smock to dupe snipers

Owen,

Thanks for that information, it does paint a different picture on the story.

Regards
Tom

 

The Hague Convention (1907) states:

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
[...]
f. To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

 

Here's the full citation from my VC thread. If I get time I'll dig out a couple of my VC books and look up the full circumstances.

Sergeant Hulme exhibited most outstanding and inspiring qualities of leadership, initiative; skill, endurance and most conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty from the commencement of the heavy fighting in CRETE, on 20th May, 1941, until he was wounded in action 28th May, 1941.

On ground overlooking MALEME Aerodrome on 20th and 21st May he personally led parties of his men from the area held by the forward position and destroyed enemy organised parties who had established themselves out in front of our position, from which they brought heavy rifle, machine-gun and mortar fire to bear on our defensive posts. Numerous snipers in this area were dealt with by Sergeant Hulme personally; 130 dead were counted here.

On 22nd, 23rd and 24th May Sergeant Hulme was continually going out alone or with one or two men and destroying enemy snipers. On 25th May, when Sergeant Hulme had rejoined his Battalion, this unit counter-attacked GALATOS village. The attack was partially held up by a large party of the enemy holding the school, from which they were inflicting heavy casualties on our troops. Sergeant Hulme went forward alone, threw grenades into the school and so disorganised the defence that the counterattack was able to proceed successfully.

On Tuesday, 27th May, when our troops were holding a defensive line at SUDA BAY during the final retirement, five enemy snipers had worked into position on the hillside overlooking the flank of the Battalion line. Sergeant Hulme volunteered to deal with the situation, and stalked and killed the snipers in turn. He continued similar work successfully through the day.

On 28th May at STYLOS, when an enemy heavy mortar was severely bombing a very important ridge held by the Battalion rearguard troops, inflicting severe casualties, Sergeant Hulme, on his own initiative, penetrated the enemy lines, killed the mortar crew of four, put the mortar out of action, and thus very materially assisted the withdrawal of the main body through STYLOS. From the enemy mortar position he then worked to the left flank and killed three snipers who were causing concern to the rearguard. This made his score of enemy snipers 33 stalked and shot. Shortly afterwards Sergeant Hulme was severely wounded in the shoulder whilst stalking another sniper. When ordered to the rear, in spite of his wound, he directed traffic under fire and organised stragglers of various units into section groups.



No mention of an enemy smock in the citation (I didn't think there would be). If memory serves me well he only put the smock on towards the end of the citation where he killed 3 snipers 'causing concern to the rearguard'.

 

Dear god, Drew; That guy was bloody Awesome!

And yet we still have some snivellers who just can't help but nit pick about the finer points of 'war law'. I mean, here's my own perspective on it; One man ~ hell of a bloody man at that! ~ uses a bit of initiative to up the anti against pretty horrific odds in open combat? He gets vilified.

Drop a thermonuclear bomb onto and deliberately and premeditatedly melt a concentrated civilian population? No problemmo. Nothing in any conventions about That sort of thing. No one voices a problem with it.

I mean, FFS!

 

I've just read about him in two VC books and none mention the smock. The only place I have read he used a German smock was on Wikipedia

It's a shame he is not alive to answer the accusations himself...Funny how some people speak ill of the dead but never when they are alive. He didn't pass away until 1982 so I'm sure someone could have asked him.

Cheers
Andy

 

On Crete Hulme served as 23rd Battalion Provost Sergeant until the German airborne invasion. Then, over an eight day period, Hulme ventured into enemy territory to seek out and kill snipers. Dressed in enemy camouflage uniform, Hulme accounted for 33 enemy snipers before he was wounded and evacuated.


NZDF - Alfred (Clive) Hulme, VC

I wonder if as Tom mentioned he was just using it to help conceal his position from the enemy or as Owen said he was almost going up to the enemy and asking about the arrangements for towels on the sun loungers by the pool

 

Andy,

Wikipedia is alright, but I would not like to rely just on Wikipedia when seeking facts and making judgements.

Regards
Tom

 

Exactly Tom

 

And yet we still have some snivellers who just can't help but nit pick about the finer points of 'war law'.

Yess! That's the spirit - screw the war law, especially the finer points!

I must have got it wrong because I'm somewhat German. Sorry guys.

 

Yess! That's the spirit - screw the war law, especially the finer points!

I must have got it wrong because I'm somewhat German. Sorry guys.


Kate,
The Geneva Convention is as you quoted, very specific.

As someone who had to decide on evidential issues every day during the last 5 years of my service I know that there are always two sides to every story.

The truth usually lays somewhere between the two.

I would only make a decision on guilt bases on hard facts of evidence.

Are there any witness statements in the public domain that would show beyond a shadow of doubt, just what did occurr?

Unless there is absolute evidence against a person, there is no proof of guilt and therefore any prosecution is doomed to failure.

Regards
Tom

 

(Hague convention)

Maybe I really am some fucking pacifist sniveller who comes from a questionable academic background and waves around pissy human rights when I have "never been in a foxhole being shelled, mortared, and under heavy fire".
I nonetheless understand that rules are being bent and broken during the war, hell, I understand why Hulme would dress as German to kill those fucking snipers. But the rules are the rules, for god sake, there's a reason why they are established! I didn't make the freaking rules, why do I get dissed for pointing them out? I cannot avoid the impression that had Hulme not been Brit but some filthy kraut bastard, things would be seen differently.
I'd like to repeat that I didn't accuse Hulme of anything (hey, I didn't even say anything about him and the story), let alone call him a war criminal! and that I perfectly understand why he did it - but just because he was on the right side can't make me approve of it. And seriously, even though I understand it I still think it's a rotten thing to do. I'd state the same if he was German. Or nearly, I feel more sympathetic with Hulme because he was fighting on the right side.

You can all disagree with me, fine, you can call me whatever you like, less fine, but one thing I'd like to point out: I am - and have always been - trying to stay objective (that sounds awfully much like Elven, I guess?). And I think that those on here who are aquainted with me know that I by no means tend to pro-Nazi (or even German) views.

 

I thought the Geneva Convention was good for both sides. I have this recollection of German infiltrators in the Bulge in US uniforms being shot and nobody complaining. Must be true, it even comes in Wikipedia

Skorzeny was tried as a war criminal at the Dachau Trials in 1947 for allegedly violating the laws of war during the Battle of the Bulge, he and officers of Panzerbrigade 150 being charged with improperly using American uniforms to infiltrate American lines. All the defendants were acquitted, the military tribunal drawing a distinction between using enemy uniforms during combat and for other purposes including deception; it could not be shown that Skorzeny had actually given any orders to fight in US uniform.[10] A surprise defence witness was F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas, GC, MC & Bar, Croix de Guerre, a former Allied SOE agent who testified that he had himself worn German uniforms behind enemy lines.

Is this murky or what?

 

Bloody hell, Brenters! Steady on!

Listen; How about ye go right back to the very start of this thread and read through? It was started years ago. And some dip stick, back then, was giving the attitude and trying to wind everyone up.

Now, I only read all that what? Yesterday? So it was fresh for me. That's what I was reacting to. Nothing to do with ye own responses and views.

And, if that doesn't make sense to ye? Look at it this way: A mate may call me things which a stranger in a pub could justifiably expect a slap for. It's not just the view expressed. It's the tone and motivation behind it.

I don't imagine anyone on here was having a pop at you

 

I think I quite overreacted there, my temper just got the better of me... I'm really sorry about that, so, my apologies to you guys, esp. Steve.

Of course my opinion stays the same .

 

I think perhaps a case of shoe and other foot should be considered....What if it was a German wearing a British Para smock doing the same thing and he was awarded a Knights Cross?

Personaly I don't have a massive problem with either...Just not cricket in my book as I said earlier.

 

What would be hypocritical is branding the Germans war criminals had they caught Hulme and shot him out of hand. Big boy's rules work both ways.

An interesting example of that scenario is that of Sgt Brotherton USAAF (scroll down a bit). Clearly a chap far braver than I'm ever likely to be but I wouldn't have said he was the victim of a war crime as we [mostly] understand it here. Some of the original files are in the gallery linked from the article.

A valid question might be: would Hulme have been awarded the VC if the full story had been included in the recommendation? By officially recognising and rewarding an 'unfair' act, are other troops' or POWs' lives being put in more danger than necessary? Look what happened to POWs after the Hun learned that his prisoners had been handcuffed.

 

Idler,
I think you have it right. He surely would have been shot outright had the Germans captured him. I get the sense that they all knew the rules and the unwritten code but as is human nature, individuals would crowd or cross the line if it gave them an advantage or could save their lives.
I've heard many instances of German infantry in Normandy using red cross marked field ambulances to move about and avoid being targeted by the Jabos. Would that, I wonder, also qualify for a bullet behind the ear?
A Canadian veteran I know speaks quite openly about the German soldier in Holland who stuck his rifle out a window and killed his officer who was riding by in a Bren Gun Carrier. Immediately afterward he threw down his weapon and surrendered. Or at least attempted to. One of the Canadian soldiers present emptied his Sten into him without hesitation. This vet was very matter of fact in saying he broke the code and the killing was perfectly justified. He further commented that his unit never shot prisoners but made a clear distinction in this case.

The point is that beyond the Geneva Convention was another code of conduct pretty much understood by both sides.