What I don’t see very often is what exactly consistitutes a “lawful excuse” in the context of surrender, apart from direct order from superiors. So we go back to my original point: no surrender on personal initiative is allowed.
Which makes sense. Captured soldiers are a political liability. That’s why some militaries (Israel) go as far as to declare that captured friendlies should be killed.
I’m not sure where you are from but UK uses the system of common law. Rather than list every reason why x y z can be or cannot be done it sets rules that are interpreted by a judge or court. With the exception of statutory rules like speeding where there is no excuse and the rule is 50mph etc.
Okay. So, is there a common law ruling that you can point to which defines acceptable conditions for surrender on personal initiative? Otherwise, the distinction between common law and civil law is irrelevant.
He was forced to surrender his boat in World War II […] In 1946, he was court-martialed for the loss of the submarine and was honourably acquitted.
But every case can be different, that’s the whole point. A standard or rule is set and the circumstances of each event are evaluated. Later events can refer to earlier rulings.
“Safety of personnel should be your first consideration after destruction of Asdics”
I think this counts as a superior ordering him to surrender given the context. Almost certainly played in his favor. Still got the discharge for it.
While I was not particularly clear before, I was primarily referring to enlisted infantry surrendering. Officers, especially those faced with annihilation of their command, likely have a lot more rights to order a surrender when there is no meaningful ability to continue fighting.
Edit: This, again, goes back to the politics of surrender. An official policy of death before surrender would likely crater morale and recruitment efforts, but a captured soldier is potent political leverage. So while no militaries to my knowledge (knowledge updated, some do, see edit2) have a stated no surrender policy (even Stalin’s famous “no steps back” quote is so stripped of context that is is pretty much propaganda), I also don’t see any militaries with written policies describing proper surrender procedures. It’s effectively a ban by omission.
Edit2: appreciate the link, btw. I have done some more reading. While I still stand by my original position, described in the edit, I have learned that some military forces worldwide do have an official policy of suicide before surrender in modern times. I kinda figured that died out in the 40s.
He didn’t receive the message lol. As far as he knew he was not given the order to surrender.
“Understood and agreed with. Best of luck. Well done”, followed by “Safety of personnel should be your first consideration after destruction of Asdics”. These were not received because the ciphers had been destroyed
Correct, he did not receive the order. But the order was given, and like I said, I expect that the court martial would have gone a different way if that last order read “surrender is not an option”.
Yes, and plenty of soldiers do. Many of them are then shot for cowardice.
Now, did he surrender thinking “This is clearly legitimate and I will not face serious penalties” or did he surrender thinking “Either we all die to the Germans, or I am found guilty of cowardice and executed, but at least my men will live”? This is not a question we can really answer, unless the dude did some writing on the topic which I am unaware of.
While digging further, I have not found any examples of stare decisis resulting from this decision. However, I did find that military courts in the UK do not follow common law. So that may be a fool’s errand.
Either way, I don’t find the idea of soldiers dying rather than surrendering particularly far-fetched. Although, based on previous conflicts, countries that carry out more executions for surrender/desertions/cowardice tend to be the ones that lose wars. Like I said earlier, not great for morale.
Yeah, I see that type of thing a lot.
What I don’t see very often is what exactly consistitutes a “lawful excuse” in the context of surrender, apart from direct order from superiors. So we go back to my original point: no surrender on personal initiative is allowed.
Which makes sense. Captured soldiers are a political liability. That’s why some militaries (Israel) go as far as to declare that captured friendlies should be killed.
I’m not sure where you are from but UK uses the system of common law. Rather than list every reason why x y z can be or cannot be done it sets rules that are interpreted by a judge or court. With the exception of statutory rules like speeding where there is no excuse and the rule is 50mph etc.
https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/civil-law-vs-common-law.html
Okay. So, is there a common law ruling that you can point to which defines acceptable conditions for surrender on personal initiative? Otherwise, the distinction between common law and civil law is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Lonsdale
But every case can be different, that’s the whole point. A standard or rule is set and the circumstances of each event are evaluated. Later events can refer to earlier rulings.
I think this counts as a superior ordering him to surrender given the context. Almost certainly played in his favor. Still got the discharge for it.
While I was not particularly clear before, I was primarily referring to enlisted infantry surrendering. Officers, especially those faced with annihilation of their command, likely have a lot more rights to order a surrender when there is no meaningful ability to continue fighting.
Edit: This, again, goes back to the politics of surrender. An official policy of death before surrender would likely crater morale and recruitment efforts, but a captured soldier is potent political leverage. So while no militaries to my knowledge (knowledge updated, some do, see edit2) have a stated no surrender policy (even Stalin’s famous “no steps back” quote is so stripped of context that is is pretty much propaganda), I also don’t see any militaries with written policies describing proper surrender procedures. It’s effectively a ban by omission.
Edit2: appreciate the link, btw. I have done some more reading. While I still stand by my original position, described in the edit, I have learned that some military forces worldwide do have an official policy of suicide before surrender in modern times. I kinda figured that died out in the 40s.
He didn’t receive the message lol. As far as he knew he was not given the order to surrender.
Correct, he did not receive the order. But the order was given, and like I said, I expect that the court martial would have gone a different way if that last order read “surrender is not an option”.
That’s right, he surrendered using his own initiative.
Yes, and plenty of soldiers do. Many of them are then shot for cowardice.
Now, did he surrender thinking “This is clearly legitimate and I will not face serious penalties” or did he surrender thinking “Either we all die to the Germans, or I am found guilty of cowardice and executed, but at least my men will live”? This is not a question we can really answer, unless the dude did some writing on the topic which I am unaware of.
While digging further, I have not found any examples of stare decisis resulting from this decision. However, I did find that military courts in the UK do not follow common law. So that may be a fool’s errand.
Either way, I don’t find the idea of soldiers dying rather than surrendering particularly far-fetched. Although, based on previous conflicts, countries that carry out more executions for surrender/desertions/cowardice tend to be the ones that lose wars. Like I said earlier, not great for morale.