31 replies to this topic

[FROGSMILE]

Hedley Malloch, on 06 January 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

The Iron 12 was posted as a sub-heading and I took it up from there.

But you are quite right.  Whilst Iron was the biggest, there were others.  Apart from Iron there were at least another dozen or so.  There are fragmentary accounts of the trials of eight of them - and spying doesn't seem to have entered into it.  They would have made very poor spies: most of them could't speak French or German, they could only move about with difficulty, and had no means of communicating with the Allies.

As I pointed out earlier, spying as a justification or pretence was not needed by the Germans.  They had been caught behind the lines outside one of the many windows of opportunity they were given to surrender.  That was sufficient.  Why charge them with something - spying - against which they could mount a plausible defence, when they were clearly guilty of another capital offence?

Yes, I realise that spying was a risible justification and did not mean in any sense to suggest that such a charge was plausible (indeed I don't think that I did).  My point was solely that arresting a soldier in 'civilian clothes', as opposed to uniform (as queried by Grumpy in his original post), was sufficient justification under the Hague Convention to have a man shot, over and above the failure to observe the German authority's conditions of surrender.  In short, it was a trumped up charge that was apparently used on some occasions, although I do not know how many, or how true, such reported incidents were.  I only know that I have read of them in several contemporary accounts.  I have no knowledge of the case of the 'Iron 12' and therefore make no comment in relation to it.

[truthergw]

Hedley Malloch, on 06 January 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

The Iron 12 was posted as a sub-heading and I took it up from there.

But you are quite right.  Whilst Iron was the biggest, there were others.  Apart from Iron there were at least another dozen or so.  There are fragmentary accounts of the trials of eight of them - and spying doesn't seem to have entered into it.  They would have made very poor spies: most of them could't speak French or German, they could only move about with difficulty, and had no means of communicating with the Allies.

As I pointed out earlier, spying as a justification or pretence was not needed by the Germans.  They had been caught behind the lines outside one of the many windows of opportunity they were given to surrender.  That was sufficient.  Why charge them with something - spying - against which they could mount a plausible defence, when they were clearly guilty of another capital offence?

I am not trying to justify the shooting of any soldiers, caught behind enemy lines. However, a soldier can be a perfectly good spy without being a linguist. He can counr forces, he can locate imprtant points of concentration etc. If he could then return to his own lines, he would render his own side valuable service. It is a soldier's duty to return to his own side if at all possible. The legislation about uniforms and civilian clothing was an attempt to differentiate between a spy and a soldier on the run and trying to return to his own side. Whether the proclamations by the Germans re surrendering were legal, I do not know. My gut feeling is that they were not as they had not been promulgated on all sides.

[bob lembke]

Grumpy;

Happy to help, but someone has to give me some info on this German officer; carefully checked spelling, and rank, unit, or whatever.I have about 45 Ranglisten, so I should be able to track him down if I have the initial clues. But problematic if he was not Prussian or from Wuerttemburg.

Bob Lembke

[Hedley Malloch]

bob lembke, on 10 January 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Grumpy;

Happy to help, but someone has to give me some info on this German officer; carefully checked spelling, and rank, unit, or whatever.I have about 45 Ranglisten, so I should be able to track him down if I have the initial clues. But problematic if he was not Prussian or from Wuerttemburg.

Bob Lembke

As far as I know Waechter was part of the 2nd Army based at St. Quentin.

In September 1915 he was appointed Military Governor of Belgrade.  Guise to Belgrade seems like a big promotion and, given the rôle of Serbian nationalist sympathies in the run-up to the war, it does not seem like a job the Germans would give to an idiot.  His second in command at Guise was called Kolera.

Any information on him would be gratefully received.

I'll go through my papers and find out what I can about his rank.

[Hedley Malloch]

Grumpy,

"For my part I have consulted Man Mil Law 1914 "Laws and Usages of War". It does not seem to cover in a specific sense the case of a soldier, armed and more-or less- uniformed, at large behind enemy lines. I hasten to add I am no lawyer.

The only direct and perhaps relevant paragraph is 56. every member of the armed forces, if he falls into the hands of the enemy, has a claim to be treated as a prisoner of war, unless he has committed a war crime..

Note there is no mention of surrender, he "falls into the hands of the enemy"."

So no 'right' to be treated as a PoW - just a claim?

Can you say a little more about the status, legitimacy and provenance of the 'Man Mil Law 1914.  A full reference would be useful too.

Many thanks in advance.

[bob lembke]

Hedley Malloch, on 13 January 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

As far as I know Waechter was part of the 2nd Army based at St. Quentin.

In September 1915 he was appointed Military Governor of Belgrade.  Guise to Belgrade seems like a big promotion and, given the rôle of Serbian nationalist sympathies in the run-up to the war, it does not seem like a job the Germans would give to an idiot.  His second in command at Guise was called Kolera.

Any information on him would be gratefully received.

I'll go through my papers and find out what I can about his rank.

Well, in the Prussian/Wuerttemberg Armies, as for Waechter, in 1914 there was one major, two captains,4 lts., 1 doctor, 1 catholic priest/divisional chaplain; a von cavalry captain. When you consider an Uemlaut a, instead of "ae", add 3 lts., another doctor, and a paymaster.  The major, probably the best bet, sight unseen, we have Major Waechter, on the staff of the Garde=Feldartillerie=Regiment Nr. 3 on May 6, 1914. But I think that he would have been active with his regiment, which was part of the 1st Guards Division. A Captain Waechter was a reserve officer of the Pommeranian Fuisileer Regiment Nr. 34, and was from the area of Neustetten; there was another Captain Waechter in the Landwehr, in the Garde=Landwehr=Schuetzen=Bataillon. These are the best bets.

There is another resource at this end that might be useful, but its use is time-consuming, and I am pressed for time today.  

Kolera is an unusual name, unfortunately no officer called Kolera in the Prussian or Wuerttemburg Armies in 1914. (As you probably know, there were four German armies in 1914.) So he probably was a Saxon or a Bavarian.

Bob

[GRUMPY]

Hedley Malloch, on 13 January 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Grumpy,

"For my part I have consulted Man Mil Law 1914 "Laws and Usages of War". It does not seem to cover in a specific sense the case of a soldier, armed and more-or less- uniformed, at large behind enemy lines. I hasten to add I am no lawyer.

The only direct and perhaps relevant paragraph is 56. every member of the armed forces, if he falls into the hands of the enemy, has a claim to be treated as a prisoner of war, unless he has committed a war crime..

Note there is no mention of surrender, he "falls into the hands of the enemy"."

So no 'right' to be treated as a PoW - just a claim?

Can you say a little more about the status, legitimacy and provenance of the 'Man Mil Law 1914.  A full reference would be useful too.

Many thanks in advance.

The Manual of Military Law 1914 was in a long line of such titles [previous was 1907] which I hold. Published HMSO for War Office. My copy was a 1916 reprint, with, as far as I know, no amendments in between. It covers the legitimacy of the Army under the Crown and Parliament; quotes the Geneva Convention in the original French with side-by-side English translation. Covers military crimes and punishments under British Law, details Court martial procedures and sentencing ... a massive tome of 900 pages.

Easily obtained via ABE. I will find some for you.

Less than £15 including postage! http://www.abebooks....al+military+law