View Single Post
Old 10-04-2006, 06:08 PM   #5 (permalink)
morse1001
Very Senior Member
 
morse1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wishaw, Lanarkshire, Scotland
Posts: 4,686
morse1001 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Clay
This morning's online Telegraph contains the following item about NZ VC winner Sgt A C Hulme - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...C-new_10042006

The authors of a new book suggest that Sgt Hulme's ruse of donning a German para's smock to dupe German snipers was "an act of perfidy under international law", and another NZ academic suggests that Sgt Hulme's actions (killing enemy soldiers while wearing their uniform) were "prima facie a war crime".

Do Forum members believe that Sgt Hulme's disguise was an acceptable action in war? Or is it unarguably against the rules of war?

Do they agree the NZ Govt should now apologise for Sgt Hulme's actions?

Either way, do they agree with his daughter's statement that accusing him of war crimes was "a terrible thing to bring up".

Jim
neither he nor the NZ govt have anything to apologise about. he was a man under fire and reacted in the best way he could think of in the situation.

if you look at photos of men taken in north africa, then you will see men on both sides wearing parts of each others uniforms. Does his make them War crimminals?

Also, what about the forces that used each others captured equipment?
morse1001 is offline   Reply With Quote