The teams attached to the combat groups of the brigade were to be used with them after they had infiltrated into the enemy lines. Some engineer teams were attached for marching purposes to the 2.SS-Panzer-Division (Das Reich) and were assigned the task of removing demolition charges from bridges in the 6.SS-Panzer-Army’ sector. They were placed with the spearhead troops to aid them in breaking through the enemy lines. The combat groups of the brigade were attached to the respective combat groups with which they were to march and were subj0ct to the marching orders of the commanders of the respective combat groups. Otherwise, the combat groups of the 150.SS-Panzer-Brigade remained under the command of Skorzeny.
The members of the brigade and particularly those in the Commando Company were instructed to avoid contact with enemy troops, if possible, and to avoid combat. This was to prevent them from being detected by the enemy. The troops of the brigade did not receive instructions to refrain from shooting.
The combat groups were to use the cover of night to proceed about 10 kilometers from the Meuse River as rapidly as possible. Then they were to withdraw into the forest. In the meantime, the engineer team, which had driven ahead to the bridges, would have investigated whether or not the bridges had been prepared for demolition. Then the engineer platoons of the combat groups were to proceed to the bridges, remove any demolition materials, and hold the bridges. Simultaneously, other troops were to proceed behind the respective engineer platoon and from bridgeheads and security outposts on the west sides of the bridges.
The first Combat Group left Münstereifel on the night of December 15 and reached the area of Reifferscheid the next night. The second and the third Combat Groups left Münstereifel on the night of December 15/16 at about 2400, December 16, the former had reached the area around Hallschlag, the latter a town to the west of Stadtkyll. On the morning of December 17, the first Combat Group was slightly west of Hollerath and on the next day was near the Losheimer Gap. On the morning of December 17, the second Combat Group reached the area of Lanzerath and remained there until the morning of December 19. By December 18, the third Combat Group had proceeded from Prüm to the Losheim Gap and was outside of Holzheim.
The breaking of the enemy line by the armored divisions was not (at all) completely successful. On December 18, Skorzeny decided to drop the main mission of taking the three Meuse River bridges and notified the commanders of the three combat groups of this decision. Up to December 18, some of the three combat groups had reported to Skorzeny that they had had contact with American forces. On December 18 and 19, Skorzeny remained with the headquarters of the I-SS-Panzer-Corps in the vicinity of Manderfeld and Holzheim. On the latter date, he ordered the three combat groups of the brigade to proceed to the area of Engelsdorf {Ligneuville) and that their commanding officers report to the commanding officer of the I-SS-Panzer-Corps.
After the cancellation of Operation Greif, Skorzeny suggested that the 150-SS-Panzer-Brigade be used as infantry. He was given an infantry mission and on December 20, ordered the commanding officer of the second Combat Group, accused Scherf, and the commanding officer of the third Combat Group, von Folkersam, to attack Malmedy.
The evidence includes the testimony of numerous instances in which members of the 150-SS-Panzer-Brigade, including von Behr and Kocherscheidt, were wearing American uniforms and their German paratrooper jump jackets while engaged in combat operations. There is also eyewitness testimony as to the killing of several German soldiers, who were at the time wearing American uniforms and insignia, in an engagement at Stavelot, as well as the killing of an American soldier near St Vith by a German soldier, the latter being then dressed in American uniform and insignia.
V. QUESTION OF LAW
Juridiction: It is clear that the Court had jurisdiction of the persons of the accused and of the subject matter.
Use of Enemy’s Uniforms, Insignia, etc, in Combat: Article 23 of Annex to Hague Convention N° IV of October 18, 1907, set forth in TM-27-251, War Department, US Army, Treaties Governing Land Warfare, January 7, 1944, provides in pertinent part as follows: In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden (F) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag; or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention.
Paragraph 43, FM-27-10, War Department, US Army, Rules of Land Warfare, October 1, 1940, provides: (43) National flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse.– In practice, it has been authorized to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing rule (par. 41) which paragraph quotes Article 23 of the Annex to Hague Convention N° IV, set forth above, 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.
On page 335, Volume II, Oppenheim’s International Law, it is stated: As regards the use of the national flag, the military ensigns, am the uniforms of the enemy, theory and practice are unanimous in prohibiting such use during actual attack and defense since the principle is considered inviolable that during actual fighting belligerent forces ought to be certain who is a friend and who is a foe.
Taking Uniforms, Insignia, etc, from Prisoners of War: Article 6 of the Geneva (Prisoners of War) Convention of July 27, 1929, set forth in TM-27-251, War Department, US Army, Treaties Governing Land Warfare, January 7, 1944, provides in pertinent part as follows: All effects and objects of personal use – except arms, horses, military equipment and military papers – shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, as well as metal helmets and gas masks. Identification documents, insignia of rank, decorations, and objects of value may not be taken from prisoners.
Diverting of Red Cross Parcels: Article 38 of the Geneva (Prisoners of War) Convention, supra, deals with consignments of money or valuables, as well as parcels by post intended for prisoners of war, Article 37 thereof provides: Prisoners of war shall be allowed individually to receive parcels by mail, containing foods and other articles intended to supply them with food or clothing. Packages shall be delivered to the addresses and a receipt given.
Immunity of Spies: The immunity of a spy from punishment after having escaped to his own forces has nothing to do with the law of this case involving violations of the law of war.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The law of the case is well settled. However, as to the evidence, the applicable procedure did not require that the Court make findings other than those of guilty or not guilty. Consequently, there is no explanation available as to the Court’s views concerning such testimony as that by 1/Lt William J. 0’Neill, commanding an engineer platoon of Headquarters Company 1st Battalion, 117th Infantry Regiment, 30th Infantry Division, United States Army, asserting that during the Ardennes Offensive several Germans in American uniforms and equipped with jeeps were killed, one by himself, in an engagement in Stavelot (R 379-398); that by Kocherscheidt to the effect that, while dressed in an American uniform, he killed an American soldier near St Vith; that Skorzeny asserting that Kocherscheidt wore an American uniform in action against the enemy (R 582); that Meurer, Chief of Staff to General Berger, Chief of the German Prisoner of War Bureau, as well as that by Col Paul R. Goode and LCol Roy J. Herte, both of the United States Army and in Prisoner of War Camp Fürstenberg during the fall of 1944, as to the forcible taking of uniforms and insignia from American prisoners of war in Fürstenberg (R 68-72, 118, 119, 716; P-Exs 13, 45); and that by Lang and Sternhuber as to the distribution and use of Red Cross parcels (R 143, 147, 175).
It is recommended that the record of trial be filed in the records of this office and that a copy of this Review and Recommendations be forwarded to the Judge Advocate, European Command, for his information.
Major – Infantry
Post Trial Branch
