There is much in this long thread about the Geneva Convention, particularly in the early stages, with chunks of Geneva Convention IV quoted (the Fourth is the only one to deal with war crimes). Could I respectfully point out that Convention IV was signed in August 1949. It cannot be applied retrospectively to a battlefield action of 1941. What then did apply was the Hague Convention of 1907. But here we enter a very grey area. Article 23 was mentioned earlier, part of which states that "It is especially forbidden ... To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy ...". But Article 24 states that "Ruses of war ... are considered permissible". It would be stretching the text to breaking point to claim that what this brave soldier did was a 'war crime' as defined in the fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with crimes against civilian populations. As for the Hague Convention of 1907 and the nigh impossiblity of adhering to it in modern warfare, all belligerents in WW2 drove a coach and horses through Article 25: "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited".