Talk:Alexander zu Dohna-Schlobitten (1899–1997)

Dostler
Factually incorrect- Somebody who does not understand the scenario or the Geneva convention wrote that Dohna refused to sign the order against the men who were properly in uniform because it would violate the Geneva convention. There are TWO problems with that. First, the men were dressed as Italian civilians, they were not in uniform and thus they were not under the protection of the Geneva Convention. Secondly, they were operating as partisans/spies and they had no legal protection under the Geneva Convention. We can only speculate as to Dohna's motives for not signing the execution order. The 15 men were unlawful combatants/spies/partisans and were legally executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dohna describes the events in his memoirs: The men were dressed in uniforms and that's why he refused to sign the order. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dohna is lying

Time Magazine FROM THE TIME, states that the men wore NO insignia and that while they had field jackets they were turned inside out and thus they appeared to be civilians. They were not fighting openly in marked uniforms. The Geneva convention requires that a combatant wear his uniform and bear insignia from the nation/organization/group/band/etc that he is serving.

Monday, Oct. 22, 1945

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,778442,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Geneva Convention-

Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Section b is most relevant- "that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance."

None of the 15 men had ANY insignia on their field jackets, with the jackets themselves being turned inside out. From a distance they would have appeared to be normal farmers/villagers/civilians. Even up close they would have seemed to be civilians for they had NO INSIGNIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH but reflects reliable sources. Dohna was an eyewitness, I see no reason why he should lie. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So Time Magazine is lying then? Time Magazine published that the men wore no insignia and turned their field jackets inside out just because they thought it made a good story?

Dohna wanted to be seen as a heroic man taking a stand on behalf of 15 commandos who he declared should have been POWs. He wanted to be on the right side of history. If Time Magazine articles from 1945 on the trial are not reliable, then you must have some very high standards for determining reliability, or you have some strong biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your source is not accessible, at least the "free" part doesn't say anything about the details of the event. Dohna does describe the details in his autobiography. If you know any WP:Reliable source supporting your claim that Dohna is lying, we might add that source. However, even if such a source would exist, we would present both versions of events in a neutral manner. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How wonderful "comrade commissar" that you MIGHT add facts from the trial and the coverage of the trial which reveal the men were not wearing insignia! Wikipedia is about as neutral as Joe Stalin's authorized biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)