German Infiltrators in the Battle of the Bulge (1 Viewer)

[Eazy]

I recently bought the K&C Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. As you guys know, it's a really unusual piece, a stug III disguised as a US tank destroyer and comes with 2 US disguised German infiltrators and a rather silly guy poking his body out of the tank still wearing his SS tunic!

Also in the range is the The Price of Deception set, but to be honest though it's well portrayed it's just a bit too graphic and realistic for me.

What's the general opinion on the fate of the infiltrators? Did they deserve execution as spies? They were wearing their German uniforms under the US gear and it's not like the Allies were above this kind of espionage and faced execution themselves.

What is it about spies and infiltrators that differentiates them from ordinary soldiers fighting for their country?

Also the rumour that the infiltrators and the fallschirmjagers were out there behind Allied lines probably created more panic and confusion than the Germans actually did themselves.

One final item of note is the fact that the captured Germans still kept up their misinformation during interrogation by saying their ultimate mission was to go to Paris and kill Eisenhower. They were obviously brave guys.

 

[Joey]

Easy,

I would call them brave, but they were also a bunch of ideological lunatics. Though they didn't deserve their fate, I can absolutely understand the American GI's executing these spies. In all the panic created by Skorzeny's men I think I would have done the same if I ran across a German spy.

I think that what spies differentiates from regular soldiers, is that they are a lot more dangerous then your ordinairy soldier. They can infiltrate your own camp, he could be anywhere without you even noticing. I think that's why they were/are treated more brutally.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I'm sure they were very brave, but what about the Allied troops who approached what they thought were other Allied troops without any precautions and got gunned down? I feel like they were lucky enough to even get a court martial and be executed under the laws of war. If my friends had been shot in the back by these spies, I would have put a bullet in their belly and left them to die slowly. As you may know, snipers, who were acting within the bounderies of the laws of war, were almost always executed by anyone who captured them, often with a bullet from their own gun. I think that soldiers have a their own concept of a fair fight, and when you step outside of their unofficial rules, you do so at your own risk. But then, I have never heard a shot fired in anger. The only opinion in this forum that (so far as I know) is an informed opinion comes from Chuck Harris, a combat veteran. So lets hear what he has to say: Chuck, if you were facing Nazi's in Allied uniforms, how would you have dealt with them?

 

[binder001]

The Germans took a known risk. They knew the various treaties and conventions as well as anyone else. They rolled the dice and some of them lost big. Soldiers are very protective about their group identities. Don't screw with their group! Yes, the German infiltrators had to be brave and dedicated. It was just a few jeep teams out in the midst of a half-million Allied soldiers, plus the erzatz Panzer unit with a few armored cars, Sherman tanks, and the disguised Panthers and StuG III's. Reading Skorzeny's book I was amused by his comment that every German staff officer seemed to have a captured jeep available until Skorzeny's unit started looking for them. The jeeps "disappeared" rather suddenly. The lack of US equipment in running order was why they had to use "visually modified" German armor. Still a gutsy move for the German volunteers.

As well as enforcing the "rules of war" the execution of the Germans was done to reassure the American soldiers that the infiltrator problem was taken care of - permanently!

 

[jazzeum]

When you are spy, whether in wartime or not, you knowingly take the risk that if discovered, you will be subject to harsh, if not deadly, punishment, and that your networks, when rolled up, will be subject to the same punishment. It's part and parcel inherent in the profession.

If you're interested in reading a good book about spies, I recommend Phillip Knightley's The Second Oldest Profession.

Maybe somebody could confirm this but I don't believe the Geneva Convention applies to spies.

 

[Eazy]

It's the double standards that i don't really understand. Everyone hates spies but everybody uses them.

I completely understand why US troops would kill them in the heat of the moment. I have no problem with that. It's the executions well after the fact that i find a bit puzzling. But as you say these guys knew exactly what they were getting into and probably met the ends they deserved.

 

[ucla1967]

Skorzeny's men were not spies in any technical sense of the word. Their job was to sieze bridges and crossroads and to sow confusion and panic among the American troops. I believe that the Geneva Convention permits the summary execution of enemy combatants wearing the otherside's uniforms. However, there are some exceptions relating to necessity. But you would be taking a big chance doing so and then trying to justify it. In fact, several of Skorzeny's men were given a military trail and shot. I would say that anyone, in any army, willing to infiltrate the enemy's line wearing their uniforms is brave given the potential consequences.

 

[Chuck Harris]

I'm sure they were very brave, but what about the Allied troops who approached what they thought were other Allied troops without any precautions and got gunned down? I feel like they were lucky enough to even get a court martial and be executed under the laws of war. If my friends had been shot in the back by these spies, I would have put a bullet in their belly and left them to die slowly. As you may know, snipers, who were acting within the bounderies of the laws of war, were almost always executed by anyone who captured them, often with a bullet from their own gun. I think that soldiers have a their own concept of a fair fight, and when you step outside of their unofficial rules, you do so at your own risk. But then, I have never heard a shot fired in anger. The only opinion in this forum that (so far as I know) is an informed opinion comes from Chuck Harris, a combat veteran. So lets hear what he has to say: Chuck, if you were facing Nazi's in Allied uniforms, how would you have dealt with them?

Had I been faced with this problem. I would not have given it a second thought about putting them down. But they have the advantage, same skin color, uniform & language. If you have the experience and noticed the little things that could give infiltrators away you shoot. If you're wrong you think Crap and walk away.
If you are new-be and have never killed a person you pause. I did, everybody does the 1st, 2th, & 3th time you can't help it if normal. A new-be would be a dead man.

QUESTION
HOW MANY COMBAT VETS ARE ON THIS FORUM?
I'm Member VFW, American Legion & Life Member Of DAV

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

I was not an Infantry Soldier but as a Tanker you train to think of the enemy tanks and personnel carriers as targets and dont give it a lot of thought to there being men in them. I sat out the 1st Gulf War but like many others in my shoes we did a lot of what we call After Action Reviews (AAR's) and discussed the fighting in great depth too include how did you feel kind of questions and for the most part many of the guys I worked with didnt have much of a feeling from the fighting they were in unless they were injured. I think as a crew man on a tank you know you have to act or you all could be killed so thats what you do.

As far as how I would react to people in our uniforms shooting at me well I'd probably be more than a little pissed and would think twice about shooting back. Me or you situation me wins.

I also did some reasearch into the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War and have some interesting points to put in this thread so here goes:

1. THE USE OF ENEMY UNIFORMS, INSIGNIA, ETC.
It is a generally recognised rule that the belligerents are allowed to employ ruses of war or stratagems during battles. A ruse of war is defined by Oppenheim-Lauterpacht (International Law, Vol. II, paragraph 163) as a deceit employed in the interest of military operations for the purpose of misleading the enemy ". When contemplating whether the wearing of enemy uniforms is or is not a legal ruse of war, one must distinguish between the use of enemy uniforms in actual fighting and such use during operations other than actual fighting.
On the use of enemy uniforms during actual fighting the law is clear. Lauterpacht says: " As regards the use of the national flag, the military insignia and the uniforms of the enemy, theory and practice are unanimous in prohibiting such use during actual attack and defence since the principle is considered inviolable that during actual fighting belligerent forces ought to be certain of who is friend and who is foe ". The Defence, quoting Lauterpacht, pleaded that the 150th Brigade had instructions to reach their obectives under cover of darkness and in enemy uniforms, but as soon as they were detected, they were to discard their American uniforms and fight under their true colours.
Paragraph 43 of the Field Manual published by the War Department, United States Army, on 1st October, 1940, under the title " Rules of Land Warfare ", says: " National flags, insignias and uniforms as a ruse-in practice it has been authorised to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing rule (Article 23 of the Annex of the IVth Hague Convention), does not prohibit such use, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to make use of them during a combat. Before opening fire upon the enemy, they must be discarded ". The American Soldiers' Handbook, which was quoted by Defence Counsel, says: " The use of the enemy flag, insignia and uniform is permitted under some circumstances. They are not to be used during actual fighting, and if used in order to approach the enemy without drawing fire, should be thrown away or removed as soon as fighting begins ".
THE TAKING OF UNIFORMS, INSIGNIA, ETC., FROM PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 6 of the Geneva (Prisoner-of-War) Convention, 1929, provides that:
"All effects and objects of personal use, except arms, military equipment and military papers, shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war ..." The taking of uniforms of prisoners of war is therefore a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Article 37 of the same Convention states that: " Prisoners of war shall be allowed individually to receive parcels by mail containing food and other articles intended for consumption or clothing. Packages should be delivered to the addressees and a receipt given ". To appropriate such packages before they reach their addressees is therefore also a violation of the Geneva Convention.

I know this is a long post but I thought it was worth clarifing the rules we live by.

Dave

 

[jazzeum]

Thank you Dave. So would it be a proper conclusion that since a uniform as a ruse would not or is not permitted during a combat situation, people who do so are not entitled to the benefits of the Convention?

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Brad,

Thats a good question, and there seems to be some issue with this if as in the case of 150 Brigade and Skorzeys bunch they fire upon the enemy while in the uniforms they could be considered "unlawful Combatant" but they would still have to be tried before they could be punished which could be anything from long terms in prison to a death sentance. Most of the time they were imprisoned but occasionaly they were shot. There is a fairly detail description of the Rules of War linked to the Geneva Convention accords in wikpedia.

Now there is the other sid eof the ruse which is if they use the uniforms flags national symbols etc to get close to their enemy and dont engage them until they are out of the other sides uniform that seems to be allowable. This was why many of Skorzenys people picked up after the war for the war crimes tribunal were aquitted of this particular charge and may have been found guilty of some other crime. I would suggest reading the wikpedia info and links because it is a very complicated subject.

Dave

 

[Chuck Harris]

In my 24 years in the military 28 months of that in combat or combat zones, other than basic I don't recall the Geneva Convention being a subject taught or talked about.
In Southeast Asia nobody else knew what the Geneva Convention was or cared.

Waking up with all your body parts was the start of a good day.

 

[DMNamiot]

Amen to that!

We didnt talk too much about it either but in todays Army they are sure talking about a lot of things like this. My wife is still on active duty so I get to read and hear a lot of the stuff they are being force fed. It sure aint the Army I came up in.

Dave

 

[ucla1967]

Had I been faced with this problem. I would not have given it a second thought about putting them down. But they have the advantage, same skin color, uniform & language. If you have the experience and noticed the little things that could give infiltrators away you shoot. If you're wrong you think Crap and walk away.
If you are new-be and have never killed a person you pause. I did, everybody does the 1st, 2th, & 3th time you can't help it if normal. A new-be would be a dead man.

QUESTION
HOW MANY COMBAT VETS ARE ON THIS FORUM?
I'm Member VFW, American Legion & Life Member Of DAV

Chuck,

I am not a combat veteran, but I did serve as a volunteer in the Regular Army from 1961 to 1964. Timing has a lot to to with how things come out in life. I enlisted at age 19 between my freshman and sophmore year of college during the Berlin Wall Crisis. Had I had not done so, I would have been right in the middle of Viet Nam. I tried to volunteer for Viet Nam in 1962, but my M.O.S. (059.10) was not there and I wound up in Sinop,Turkey and Bad Aibling, Germany.

 

[Gideon]

I thought "all is fair in love and war" - you do both at your risk.

Forgive me for being naive. I don't really see how hiding oneself in an enemy uniform as an infiltrator or hiding oneself as a civilian are any different. If I were in battle I would only hope I would gain enough experience quick enough to deal with situations as effectively as Chuck has explained.

 

[halomeeps]

Dave did a great job on the research. The Germans were caught-executed and some were even given trials. Its hard to stop and NOT kill someone when your friend/ brother in arms has been killed. You live and depend on each other and the bond last a life time. At the time of this battle US troops had been executed at Malmendy (sp). Rumors of the massacre had made it out to the troops so I'm sure they weren't to happy.
I'm a vet of the First Gulf War (10th SFGA)/ OEF Afghanistan (20th SFGA).
I retired from the guard May 05 because of health reasons and as my unit prepares to leave for another trip, I wish I was going with them, not because I like killing but I fear that if one doesn't make it back, I WILL feel that there was something I could have done to prevent it. Enough rambling...ED

 

[Chuck Harris]

Dave did a great job on the research. The Germans were caught-executed and some were even given trials. Its hard to stop and NOT kill someone when your friend/ brother in arms has been killed. You live and depend on each other and the bond last a life time. At the time of this battle US troops had been executed at Malmendy (sp). Rumors of the massacre had made it out to the troops so I'm sure they weren't to happy.
I'm a vet of the First Gulf War (10th SFGA)/ OEF Afghanistan (20th SFGA).
I retired from the guard May 05 because of health reasons and as my unit prepares to leave for another trip, I wish I was going with them, not because I like killing but I fear that if one doesn't make it back, I WILL feel that there was something I could have done to prevent it. Enough rambling...ED

Ed

You are not rambling. I understand your feelings you feel like you are letting them down by not being with them. Nobody likes the killing, you don't even think about it you've learned to put that way fer back in you head.

They will be part of you for the rest of you life. Keep your memories of them with pride and joy of having known and fought with them at their side.
I have found as I have grown older and my health has faded I can draw strength from my memories of them. I still see at the age we were then.

 

[OzDigger]

It's a given that you are allowed to disguise and deceive the enemy up until combat has started, the tactic is as old as war itself. I recall the Q ships the British used in WWI that were disguised as freighters with neutral flags. When a U boat came in close to check them out they'd drop the covers hiding their guns and blast the U-boat out of the water - while lowering the false colors at the same time of course

The only stuff on the Battle of the Bulge deceipt that I have seen is the movie and it isn't what you would call accurate, remember that Malmedy scene. If they were captured while behind US lines in actual US uniforms with flags, div signs etc I'd say shoot them. As for the disguised AFV, well thats just a different type of camo, and ok imo.