#WarCrime #FakingSurrender #RulesOfWarfare
Is it a war crime to fake surrender and then attack? 🤔 This is a contentious issue that has sparked debate among experts and military personnel. Let’s delve into the complexities of this topic and explore the legal and ethical implications of such actions.
Understanding the Rules of War
The Geneva Conventions and other international laws have established rules of warfare to protect civilians and combatants. These rules aim to minimize the impact of armed conflict and safeguard the rights of individuals involved in armed conflict.
Faking Surrender: Legal Perspective
According to the laws of war, feigning surrender is not explicitly defined as a war crime. However, it can be deemed as violating the principle of perfidy, which prohibits the use of deceitful tactics to gain an advantage over the enemy. The argument against faking surrender is based on the premise that it undermines the trust and credibility of surrendering parties, potentially endangering the lives of genuine combatants who wish to surrender in good faith.
Case Study: The Battle of Stalingrad
During World War II, the Battle of Stalingrad witnessed instances of both Axis and Soviet forces employing tactics that blurred the lines between genuine surrender and deceptive maneuvers. In some cases, soldiers faked surrender to ambush the enemy, leading to significant casualties on both sides. This historical example underscores the ethical and practical implications of feigning surrender in warfare.
The Moral Dilemma
Beyond legal considerations, the ethical dimension of faking surrender and launching an attack raises moral questions about the treatment of enemy combatants and the impact on civilian populations. Soldiers who engage in such tactics may face internal moral conflicts and grapple with the implications of deceiving their adversaries to gain an advantage in combat.
Navigating Complex Situations: Rules of Engagement
In modern warfare, the rules of engagement dictate the parameters for the use of force and the conduct of military operations. Commanders and troops are guided by specific rules and protocols that govern their behavior on the battlefield. When it comes to surrender and attacks, military personnel must adhere to the rules of engagement and make decisions that align with legal and ethical standards.
The Role of International Tribunals
In cases where allegations of war crimes arise from deceptive tactics, international tribunals and courts may assess the conduct of individuals and military units to determine if their actions violated established laws of war. The prosecution of individuals for faking surrender and engaging in unlawful combat tactics underscores the global commitment to upholding the principles of humanitarian law in armed conflict.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the question of whether faking surrender and then attacking constitutes a war crime is a complex issue with legal, ethical, and operational implications. While it may not be explicitly classified as a war crime, such tactics can raise serious ethical concerns and potentially violate the principles of perfidy and the rules of engagement. As military forces navigate the complexities of modern warfare, adherence to legal and moral standards remains critical in upholding the integrity of armed conflict.
In summary, faking surrender and launching an attack is a contentious issue with legal, ethical, and operational implications. While it may not be explicitly classified as a war crime, it raises serious ethical concerns and can violate the principles of perfidy and the rules of engagement. As military forces navigate the complexities of modern warfare, adherence to legal and moral standards remains critical in upholding the integrity of armed conflict.
Yes under Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy
Depends somewhat on the circumstance, but generally it’s considered Perfidy and against the Geneva convention. But some people do it anway
It’s also especially stupid because if you establish that precedent then the enemy will start just biding their time when other troops legitimately surrender, then giving orders to shoot them en masse. This tends to be pretty bad for morale. Late in WW2 for example, German troops were known to go quite out of their way to retreat from the Soviets and surrender to the allies. If the Russian caught them, they were usually just either taken out in the woods under some pretense and executed, or sent to the Gulag to be “reeducated”meaning worked and starved to death over months or years. Whereas, ironically, German PoWs were treated notably better by the Allies than Black American G.I.s
You want to treat PoW’s pretty well, make sure they’re fed and given modest entertainment. You want to make a show of giving them likely better treatment then they had on the front line.
Not only a warcrime but a detriment to the party doing it aswell. If the enemy cant take your word for your surrender then you will *never be given the option to surrender*.
Yes. Huge war crime. Any time you read about people shooting surrendering troops it is ALWAYS because the other side made a habit of pulling this shit.
Yes, and I believe fake surrender as well.
Only if you fail.
I never really understood war crimes. I mean people are literally unaliving each other, you’d think anything goes except torturing helpless prisoners. Sad world we live in. Is there any other crazy war crimes I may have not heard of? I’m interested.
Well according to the Geneva convention, but last time I checked, the winner gets to decide what constitutes a war crime, so that action would more than likely not be looked at as such
this was an incident from about a year ago in eastern ukraine.
the video from the first link does not show anybody being killed on video, but their is satellite images of the aftermath, including dead bodies.
https://www.wsj.com/video/series/on-the-news/videos-appear-to-show-ukrainian-troops-shooting-surrendering-russians/09C4C2F2-6A94-46BE-B3A5-207DDC6B4D29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makiivka_surrender_incident
Kiff, wave the white flag of war!
Yes.
It makes no sense why war has rules. Why not just change one of the rules to no killing. Wouldn’t that solve a whole lot?
Yes
It is also however, a war crime to kill a surrendering enemy
And that being a war crime is the reason falsly surrendering is. Because if you can’t trust their surrender, you’ll just shoot everyone regardless
It is a war crime yes, but personally, idk if it should be.
(I’ll probably be down voted to hell, but this is what I genuinely believe)
You have no idea whats going to happen to you once you surrender. They expect compliance, for you to give up valuable info on your own people. Refusal could end with horrific tourcher. Those who surrendered to the Nazis usually ended up way worse off than if they had died in combat or retreated. That’s just one example, very very rarely do things turn out OK if you surrender to the enemy, no matter what time and place in history. Even if it’s the law of those who you surrendered to to do you no harm, doesn’t guarantee your safety. The things that could happen to you between your surrender and your arrival at the holding facility are endless.
Personally, if espionage isn’t a war crime, neither should fighting after surrendering.
OP generally anything that would make the other side think ‘is this person whose <clearly not fighting>’ May be a spy/whatever based on (other thing someone else did) is broadly not ok
Ideally: it is a war crime
In practice: depends on if you win the war or not
Yes and they do this constantly in Star Wars the Clone Wars. Anakin alone has done it multiple times. There are some great videos dedicated to the war crimes of the Clone Wars
People talk about war crimes as if there’s some overall hierarchy controlling the world. They attempt this with the UN, but it still doesn’t matter, just look at Israel.
The world is anarchy. You can do what you want as long as you eliminate dissent, control the narrative via the media, and have the backing of the big and strong. Again, look at Israel.
War crime sounds like an oxymoron. Like war is all about gaining an unfair advantage over the other yet we regulate violence of action. War is cruel, reforming it just prolongs it, the crueler it is the faster it is over. Is it better to drop an atomic bomb or slug it out fairly?