Civilian Recon

[DavidFields]

I was playing one of the Allied Recon scenerios, and I had this thought:

If I led one of those thin-skin armoured car recon groups, I think I would stop at almost every farm house and ask, "Any Germans around?"

When I was at the edge of a town, I would do the same thing.

Is it against the Geneva Convention to use civilians to scout? ie--asking civilians to go into the town market to shop, and look around, and report back. I would bet that everyone did that, if there was a friendly population. But doesn't that make those civilians, perhaps women and children, combatants?

[ July 03, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

[flamingknives]

Errr, I think that people working for your army in civilian clothing are called spies.

But there is an argument for including civilians, as their prescence (or more importantly, abscence) can indicate enemy troop positions. As reported by a WWII German scout car commander operating in Russia, no less.

[ng cavscout]

Drawing on modern U.S. training, interacting with the civilian populace is very much encouraged. My military specialty is reconnaissance, and we often incorporate a civilian presence that can be used, if you do it right, to greatly increase our intel gathering capabilities. I wouldn't think it was much different for our troops going across France in 1944. The greatest obstacle would, IMHO, be the language barrier.

As to how BTS would incorporate this into the CM engine, I have no idea.

[DavidFields]

In part, one could simulate being in friendly occupied lands by giving very detailed initial briefings to the side which had the support of the civilian population.

Spies...such a harsh word....but, I guess, it is "legal" in war to have such helpers.

[Dandelion]

There are two parties to the act of using civilians as scouts: the armed force employing them and the civilians.

The act of engaging civilians in a armed conflict was not illegal in 1939-45. In fact, you could take hostages, forced labour, just about anything short of murder and torture. It is not until after the war, in 1947, that the 4th Geneva Accord (covering the protection of civilians) is added.

Today it would normally be a warcrime to endanger any civilian found in a zone that is in a state of armed conflict (internal or external), such as e.g. approaching them and enticing them to become part of an armed effort (e.g. by the lending of informations of military significance). Unless they are the nationals of the armed force in question, or volonteer information without prompt. As per the second protocol to 4th Geneva, added in 1977 after the Vietnam experience.

But by 1944, both Axis and Allies would be in the clear.

The scout is worse off. A civilian forwarding the armed effort of a belligerent nation in any way (such as the lending of informations of military significance) loses status of civilian and becomes a combattant. As an enemy combattant, he or she can lawfully be eliminated. That's why he/she is endangered by the approach as above.

However, the principle of proportionality still applied. There was no automatic death sentence. Unarmed combattants (as civilians tend to be) were to be arrested and trialled (if they were armed or resisted, they'd be shot). If their aid to a hostile armed force caused significant harm, they might get the death sentence, if the nation concerned had death sentences as a domestically legal option. If the ex-civilians themselves committed armed aggression while not wearing signs of recognition (uniform - e.g. partisans), or even worse were wearing Red Cross signs or the recognition signs of the opposing armed force, most nations in WWII would find it quite proportional to shoot or hang them. The scout would probably be in some very serious trouble if caught performing tactical reconnaissance for the enemy, as it has a very direct (easily established) connection to the death or grevious injury of individual members of the prosecuting armed force.

The scout would be much better off today. Guilt has been shifted to the armed force employing them. Of course, national legislation on treason and illegal intelligence still applies...

All major powers in WWII were parties to the first Geneva convention, regulating the legality of various weaponry and legal use of the same (incorporating the Haag rules). The first also contains some major principles that (still) guides the application and interpretation of all other conventions. Such as proportionality.

Most were parties to the second convention, regulating mainly naval issues.

The third regulated PoW treatment, and here the Soviet Union and Japan were not signitary powers.

The three covered only some 40 articles in all, as compared to the 600 now regulating lawful behaviour in a state of war.

Regards

Dandelion

[DavidFields]

Superb information, Dandelion, as usual.

As a practical matter, did the Allies use civilians much for scouting in their drive across France? I would have thought it would have been very tempting--and I'll bet the Germans were too busy to be prosecuting most of the population.

[Dandelion]

I have no real qualitative overview on that, except on the widespread resistance movements of various kinds and shapes. I share your belief that there was frequent civilian aid of military forces, both such asked for and such volountarily lent with no prompting. Five years under the fascist boot, I would imagine people to be euphoric to see the allies, and even sensible people might take unnecessary risks in such a state.

There are quite a few well known photo's displaying civilians showing the way or pointing on maps, aiding the allies in their home area. Or aiding in other ways, such as the famed photo of an Italian woman puring some water (possibly wine) into a cup she has placed near a Canadian Bren gunner engaged in street fighting. As you point out the Germans were being pushed back, I imagine they had few opportunities of reprisal, or even investigating events. The situation was very confusing throughout the campaigns of France, BeNeLux and Italy. All of Europe was chaos.

Quite a few Germans, Austrians (being also Germans at the time of course) and Italians were also convicted of "collaboration" (civilians) or "treason" (Military staff) during the years 44 and 45. In the case of the Italians, the proverbial "treason is a matter of dates" was very much true. All were to my knowledge executed, as this was policy, and if possible strung up in telegraph poles with placates explaining their crimes. The Germans took the libery of expediting Italian justice as well, post reinstitution of Mussoulini in the North.

German policy in the West was by and large to conform with treaties. German interpretation of the treaties led to the reform of these after the war. For example (one among many sad such), Germany felt justified to take hostages in the fight against terrorism and banditry - they called resistance thus - and also to commit reprisal killings for any German killed in breach of treaty. So, when the resistance would kill a German, the Germans would simply kill tenfold the number of local civilians to avenge them. After the war it was found to be extremly difficult to pin these atrocities on the people responsible, as the treaties were so vague at the time. Was it proportional? Was it obviously unproportional (well to you and me it was of course)? Many, many within the security forces thus got away with murder (but many others did not, as they were foreign nationals, and later trialled by their national courts).

The Germans used the same line of reasoning against their military enemies. The murder of Canadian PoWs in Normandy on June 9th, e.g., was ordered as reprisal for an alleged British shooting of German PoWs the day before. Treaties on treatment of PoWs were however much clearer, and here the allies were able to show that these acts were criminal, and those responsible thus also criminal. So, very few military personnel got away with murder (committed in the West), regardless of rank.

In the East, Germany observed no treaties, or even their own national legislation, including the German constitution. Nor was military penal code observed in regards to neither civilians nor enemy military personnel. It was, in its core, an act of piracy and a brigandage rather than a military campaign.

Regards

Dandelion