## Facts

- During World War I, German submarine U-86, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Helmut Patzig, encountered the British hospital ship *Llandovery Castle*, which bore the required hospital-ship markings and lights.
- On June 27, 1918, U-86 torpedoed the *Llandovery Castle*; survivors escaped in multiple lifeboats.
- U-86 surfaced and interrogated survivors about whether the ship carried troops or munitions; no indication of such use was found.
- Patzig nonetheless ordered U-86 to fire on the lifeboats, sinking two of three and killing many shipwrecked persons.
- Ludwig Dithmar (first lieutenant and adjutant) and Johann Boldt (retired first lieutenant) served as senior officers on U-86, were present during the attack, and assisted with firing on the lifeboats.
- Patzig was unavailable for trial after the war; proceedings went forward against Dithmar and Boldt for their role in the killings.

## Issues

1. Whether firing on lifeboats carrying shipwrecked survivors from a duly marked hospital ship is criminal under international law and domestic homicide law.
2. Whether subordinate officers who execute an unlawful order to attack shipwrecked survivors are relieved of criminal liability by obedience to superior orders.

## Decision

- The court held that torpedoing a known hospital ship and firing on its lifeboats were offenses against the law of nations and constituted unlawful killing.
- The court rejected obedience to superior orders as a complete defense where the unlawfulness of the order was clear and refusal was required.
- Dithmar and Boldt were convicted of participation in homicide and each sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
- Additional sanctions were imposed: Dithmar was dismissed from service, and Boldt was deprived of the right to wear an officer’s uniform.

## Legal Principles

- Properly marked hospital ships are protected under the laws of war; deliberate attacks on such vessels and on shipwrecked survivors violate international law.
- Shipwrecked survivors in lifeboats are protected persons; firing on them absent military necessity supports criminal liability for unlawful killing.
- Superior orders do not excuse participation in unlawful killing when the illegality of the order is manifest and the subordinate is not acting under compulsion that negates culpability.
- The unavailability of a principal offender does not bar prosecution of accomplices who actively participate in the offense.

## Conclusion

The court imposed domestic criminal punishment for wartime killings committed in violation of the laws of war and held that subordinate officers remain liable for executing manifestly unlawful orders to attack protected shipwreck survivors.


In re Dithmar & Boldt, 16 Am. J. Int'l L. 708 (1922)