Operation Savage Revenge

Actually no. If an individual thought it was an order then it could be accepted as "obeying orders" even though it didn't qualify as an order. Note also that the Judge Adovcate did not agree with the finding of the court in the one case and it was not considered adequate in the other. Certainly such verbal orders would not be accepted as any sort of defence today.

 

I would very much doubt a court martial would let pass as dangerous a concept as "personal interpretation" on what an order is, at most it could let pass interpretation of what an order meant if it was ambiguously worded.

What the judge advocate said is totally irrelevant as long as the trial's result were left standing. Hopefully today both Patton and Cpt. Compton would be found guilty but at the time they were not.

The wiki article makes no attempt to get at the exact wording but just quotes Patton's opinion. While the text of the speech is not recorded in it's entirety (as far as I could find) what is recorded in various diaries and the testimonies at the trial is more than enough to get Patton convicted in by any independent court for issuing an illegal "take no prisoners" order though probably not for "ordering to kill prisoners" though apparently Compton interpreted it as meaning that. If you look at the "style" of other speeches by Patton that were recorded the only surprising thing is there were not more such episodes.

 

There is a difference between a motivational speech and an order. Especially back then it likely wasn't clear to many what the difference was. The principle was well established post war that "following orders" was not enough. Furthermore the Jude avocates postion was important in that it would have impacted future trials. The double jepordy clause would have prevented a retrial in any case.

Compton was pretty clarly guilty the case against Patton is far less clear especially lacking both the exact wording and the context.

 

I mostly agree, but "you do not have to accept surrender" was more a policy statement than a order to do something specific, and a speech is where one would expect a statement of policy, at least in the US army, the record obsessed WW2 Germans are likely to put that in writing in multiple copies. If you want context look up some of his recorded speeches (google "Patton speech"), they are pretty borderline when it comes to encouraging unacceptable behaviour, Patton is a repeat offender.

If you look at the "Laconia order" that was more qualified "you do not have to provide assistance to ship survivors when it puts your submarine at risk" Doenitz was acquitted not because the order was considered legal, it wasn't, the treaty clearly stated an obligation to take care of the crew when sinking an unescorted merchantman with no room for exceptions, and the possible presence of long range ASW aircraft did not automatically make all merchantmen "escorted" according to the letter of the treaty, but because it was proved allied submarine commanders were doing the same thing and rules of war treaties have a clause that states they are no longer mandatory if the other side is not respecting them.

Actually efforts to help the survivors on their victims, before the order, were more common by U-Boat captains than by allied commanders, not that it means much as there were more sinkings by U-Boats too, so the "crime" boiled down to putting on paper what everybody was already doing.

Had someone brought up that trial as "precedent" at Nurnberg it would have been a huge mess.